CIT, PANCHKULA vs. PREM SINGH, RAMGARH

ITA/85/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093826201005 July 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL7 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The appeals by the Revenue challenge the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for assessment year 2003-04. The assessee owned agricultural land acquired by the government. The land was notified as being within 5 kms of urban limits on January 6, 1994, making it a 'capital asset'. The acquisition notification was dated January 29, 1990. The Land Acquisition Collector's award was rendered on January 21, 1993, and compensation paid on January 28, 1993. Possession was to be handed over by April 15, 1993, due to standing crops. The Assessing Officer held capital gains taxable as possession was taken in 1996, after the notification date. The CIT(A) reversed this, and the ITAT affirmed the CIT(A)'s view, holding that since the land was agricultural and not a capital asset at the time of acquisition, enhanced compensation was not taxable as capital gains.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised did not arise. The core of the decision rested on the fact that the agricultural land was not a 'capital asset' as defined under Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act on the date of its acquisition. The award was made on January 21, 1993, and compensation paid on January 28, 1993, with possession to be handed over by April 15, 1993. The notification that would have made the land a 'capital asset' was dated January 6, 1994. Since the land was not a capital asset at the time of acquisition, any compensation payable, including enhanced compensation, was not exigible to tax as capital gains. The court noted that the revenue failed to produce material to show possession was taken in 1996, and the ITAT's finding that possession was to be taken by April 15, 1993, was not shown to be erroneous. The court also observed that even if additional evidence was admitted, it was not relevant to the main issue if the land was not a capital asset at the time of acquisition. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT is right in law in holding that the amount of enhanced compensation received by the assessee before its final determination does not entail assessability under Section 45(5)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT is right in law in holding that the interest on enhanced compensation does not accrue for taxation purposes till the issue of determination of enhanced compensation is finally decided? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law in holding that the interest on enhanced compensation is not liable for taxation till the issue of determination of enhanced compensation is finally decided within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT is right in law in holding that the land in question was not a capital asset, thereby completely ignoring the evidence on record considered by the Assessing Officer? 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT is right in law in admitting additional evidence (bank pass book and certificate from LAC) for holding that the original compensation was received on January 28, 1993, without recording reasons as required under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules and without giving an opportunity to the revenue? Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued that on the date of taking over possession, title vested in the government under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, relying on Buddaiah v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka-2, [1985] 155 ITR 277. They also relied on the Assessing Officer's observation that possession was taken in 1996. Assessee's contentions: The assessee contended that the land was not a capital asset when acquired, as the notification making it so was dated January 6, 1994, while acquisition and compensation payment occurred in January 1993. They argued that the ITAT's finding on the date of award, compensation payment, and extended possession date was not perverse. They also argued that no question of law was raised regarding the date of possession.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(14),Section 45(5)(b),Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 5.7.2010 Commissioner of Income-tax, Panchkula ....Appellant. Versus Prem Singh ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the respondent. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1.

This order shall dispose of ITA Nos. 85 and 163 of 2010 and 659 of 2009. The facts are being taken from ITA No. 85 of 2010. 2. This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the order dated 28.5.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B' (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) passed in ITA No. 685/Chandi/2007, for the assessment year 2003-04. The following substantial questions of law have been claimed for determination of this Court:- “(i). Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case learned ITAT is right in law in holding that the amount of enhanced compensation received by the assessee before its final determination does not entail -2- as

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 2(14)

All 1,130 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(14) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →