THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LAKSHMI CHAND (HUF)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/3/2005HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01074345200514 October 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue of taxability of enhanced compensation received conditionally on furnishing security is no longer res integra. It relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ghanshyam (HUF), [2009] 315 ITR 1 (SC), which held that in such situations, the year of taxability is the year of receipt of enhanced compensation. Consequently, the High Court found no error in the Tribunal's view that the amount of additional compensation and interest received by the assessee, subject to the furnishing of security, was not liable to be considered for the purposes of computation of capital gain under Section 45 of the Act in the year of its receipt. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Chandi Ram (HUF), had land acquired by HUDA in March 1991. Initial compensation was awarded that year. An appeal enhanced the compensation, and the assessee received additional compensation and interest for assessment years 1994-95 to 1998-99. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147, taxing the enhanced compensation and interest in the year of receipt, and also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, directing that income from capital gain and interest should be charged in the year of receipt, but amounts covered by security should not be treated as income until unconditionally released. The revenue appealed this to the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in light of Section 45(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the amount of enhanced compensation received by the assessee, which was subject to a pending dispute regarding its quantum in the High Court and received conditionally upon furnishing security, was exigible to capital gains tax in the year of receipt? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the procedural history indicates the assessee did not include the additional compensation in computation, attaching separate notes, suggesting a dispute over its taxability in the year of receipt. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in reversing the CIT(A)'s findings, implying that the amount of additional compensation and interest received by the assessee, even if subject to furnishing security, should not be considered for capital gains computation in the year of receipt.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 45(5),Section 147,Section 148,Section 271(1)(c),Section 45

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 14.10.2010 Shri Chandi Ram (HUF) ....Appellant. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

The controversy to be resolved in the instant appeal is whether in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in CIT v. Hindustan & Land Development Trust Limited, [1986] 161 ITR 524, the amount of enhanced compensation was exigible to tax in the year of receipt after insertion of Section 45(5) in the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), though there was dispute pending regarding quantum of compensation in the High Court.

2.

The facts necessary for adjudicating the present controversy as pleaded in the appeal are that the land of the assessee was acquired by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) in March, 1991 and first compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in that year itself. On appeal, the District Judge, Faridabad enhanced the amount of compensation. The assessee received additional compensation as well as interest for the relevant -2- assessment years. The dispute herein relates to taxability of enhanced compensation received by the assessee. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act for the assessment years from 1994-95 to 1998-99 and issued notices under Section 148. The assessee had offered the receipt of interest on enhanced compensation in his return but additional compensation was not included in the computation and separate notes were attached with the return. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee relating to enhanced compensation and included in the taxable income in the year of receipt. The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated against the assessee for non-disclosure of income. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short “the CIT(A)”] while partly allowing the appeal of the assessee had given the guidelines to be followed by the Assessing Officer. The relevant guidelines for the purpose of this appeal are as under:- “(i) The income from capital gain and interest should be charged in the year of receipt. (ii) The percentage of capital gain arising out of payment which is covered by security should not be treated as income for the year but the remaining balance which has been unconditionally released should be charged to income from capital gain. Similar will be the amount of interest paid to be charged to tax.”

3.

The revenue had challenged the aforesaid direction of the CIT (A) by filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had held -3- that the basis of taxation of compensation and enhanced compensation was the actual receipt by the assessee. Accordingly, the Tribunal reversed the findings of the CIT (A) holding the amount of additional compensation and interest received by the assessee subject to the furnishing of security not liable to be considered for the purposes of computation of capital gain under Section 45 of the Act in the year of its receipt.

4.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5.

The question in this appeal is whether the enhanced compensation received by the assessee conditionally on furnishing security for its release would be exigible to capital gains tax in the year of receipt even after insertion of Section 45(5) of the Act retrospectively w.e.f. 1.4.1988. 6. The issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ghanshyam (HUF), [2009] 315 ITR 1 (SC) has held that in such a situation the year of taxability is the year of receipt of enhanced compensation. Once that is so, no error can be found with the view adopted by the Tribunal.

7.

Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE October 14, 2010 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) gbs JUDGE

More judgments on Section 45(5)

All 147 judgments and leading authorities on Section 45(5) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →