COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ROOP SINGH

PDF · subscribers
ITA/522/2008HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01080523200807 August 2014Author: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE DR. RAVI RANJAN3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the revenue's appeal and set aside the Tribunal's order. The Court noted that subsequent decisions of the High Court in several cited cases (e.g., CIT v. Shri Prem Singh, CIT v. Karambir Singh, CIT v. Bir Singh (HUF)) necessitated a fresh adjudication of the issue. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the respondent-assessee. The specific finding on the taxability of enhanced compensation and interest was not decided by the High Court, as the matter was remitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh. Roop Singh, HUF, received enhanced compensation along with interest and did not file a return of income. A notice under Section 148 was issued on 27.1.2003, and the assessee filed a return on 23.3.2004, declaring income of ₹ 7,83,460. The Assessing Officer assessed total income at ₹ 12,89,630 under Section 143(3). The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal. The revenue appealed to the ITAT, which partly allowed the appeal and directed the AO to decide the taxability of enhanced compensation and interest based on Supreme Court and Special Bench decisions. The revenue has appealed this ITAT order dated 12.9.2007 for assessment year 2000-01.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in directing the Assessing Officer to decide the taxability of enhanced compensation and interest as per the decision of the Apex Court in Rama Bai v. Commissioner of Income Tax and the observations in DCIT v. Padam Prakash, HUF, rather than deciding the issue itself? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The revenue contended that the Tribunal should have decided the issue of taxability of enhanced compensation and interest itself, rather than remitting it to the Assessing Officer. The revenue relied on subsequent decisions of the High Court in cases like CIT v. Shri Prem Singh, CIT v. Karambir Singh, and CIT v. Bir Singh (HUF).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 148,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 7.8.2014 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ....Appellant. Versus Sh. Roop Singh, HUF ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH. PRESENT: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the order dated 12.9.2007 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “I”, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 4603/DEL/05 for the assessment year 2000-01, claiming the substantial questions of law as mentioned in para 4 of the appeal.

2.

The assessee received enhanced compensation along with interest thereon and had not filed its return of income. A notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 27.1.2003. The assessee filed its return of income on 23.3.2004 declaring the income at ` 7,83,460/-. The Assessing Officer framed assessment under Section GURBACHAN SINGH 2014.10.01 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh -2- 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 29.3.2004 (Annexure A-1) at a total income of ` 12,89,630/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who vide order dated 19.9.2005 (Annexure A-2) partly allowed the appeal. The revenue challenged the said order (Annexure A-2) in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 12.9.2007 (Annexure A-3) partly allowed the appeal and directed the Assessing Officer to decide the taxability of enhanced compensation and interest as per the decision of the Apex Court in Rama Bai v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1990) 181 ITR 400 and the observations of the Special Bench in DCIT v. Padam Prakash, HUF (104-TTJ-989). Hence, the present appeal.

3.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

4.

In view of the subsequent decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri Prem Singh, ITA No. 85 of 2010, decided on 5.7.2010, Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Karambir Singh L/H of Late Shri Khushi Ram, ITA No. 283 of 2006, decided on 24.8.2010, Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Bir Singh (HUF) Ballabgarh, ITA No. 209 of 2004, decided on 27.10.2010, CM Nos. 27928-29-CII of 2010 in ITA No. 85 of 2010 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula v. Prem Singh, decided on 16.12.2010 and Manjeet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh v. Union of India and others, CWP No. 15506 of 2013, decided on 14.1.2014, the matter is required to be remanded to the Tribunal to adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with law.

5.

Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the order dated 12.9.2007 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Tribunal is set aside and GURBACHAN SINGH 2014.10.01 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh -3- the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to decide afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent-assessee. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE August 7, 2014 (FATEH DEEP SINGH) gbs JUDGE GURBACHAN SINGH 2014.10.01 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →