C I T vs. BHOOP RAM DAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/41/2008HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01080399200808 April 2008Author: MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL,MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG9 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found no force in the revenue's contention. It held that the issue was covered by its own judgment in ITA No.490 of 2007 decided on 26.3.2008. In that judgment, it was held that interest on enhanced compensation would not accrue until the issue of enhanced compensation is finally decided. Upon finality of the determination of enhanced compensation by the Court, the accrued interest has to be spread over on an annual basis from the date of delivery of possession until the date of the Court's order, on a time basis. Therefore, the High Court found no fault with the view taken by the Tribunal and concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appeals by the revenue concerned the assessment year 1999-2000, involving four Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) as assessees. The assessees had received enhanced compensation and interest on enhanced compensation. The Assessing Officer assessed the interest income on a receipt basis. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the Assessing Officer's order, noting that no books of accounts were maintained and returns for earlier years were not filed to declare interest income, making the accrual basis difficult to ascertain. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reversed the CIT(A)'s order, following a Special Bench decision, holding that interest on enhanced compensation is taxable only when the issue relating to enhanced compensation attains finality.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in holding that assessment of interest cannot be made until the matter is finally settled by the High Court, in contradiction with the judgement of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryana following the judgement of Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Rama Bai (181 ITR 400) whereby interest on enhanced compensation is to be taxed on accrual basis irrespective of the pendency of appeal in higher courts in respect of enhanced compensation? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The ITAT erred in holding that interest on enhanced compensation is taxable only when the issue relating to enhanced compensation attains finality, as it would accrue to the assessee at that time only. The revenue relied on the judgment in CIT v. Rama Bai (1990) 181 ITR 400, arguing that interest accrues year after year from the date of possession until the order granting enhanced compensation and cannot be assessed in a lump sum in the year of the order. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the ITAT's decision contradicts the High Court's judgment in CIT v. Rama Bai, which mandates taxation on an accrual basis irrespective of pending appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CM No.1082-CII of 2008 and Date of decision: 8.4.2008 ITA No.41 of 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-Faridabad ......Appellant Versus Sh. Bhoop Ram Dagar, HUF, s/o Sh. Deep Chand Dagar, Village Jharsaintly, Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad ......Respondent (Assessment year 1999-2000)

Tax-Faridabad ......Appellant Versus Sh. Chet Ram Dagar, HUF, s/o Sh. Deep Chand Dagar, Village Jharsaintly, Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad ......Respondent (Assessment year 1999-2000)

Tax-Faridabad ......Appellant Versus Sh. Rohtash Singh Dagar, HUF, s/o Sh. Deep Chand Dagar, Village Jharsaintly, Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad ......Respondent (Assessment year 1999-2000)

Tax-Faridabad ......Appellant Versus Sh. Bharat Lal Dagar, HUF, s/o Sh. Deep Chand Dagar, Village Jharsaintly, Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad ......Respondent (Assessment year 1999-2000)

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant-revenue. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J . CM No.1082-CII of 2008

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 38 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of.

1.

These appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act (for short the 'Act') have been filed by the revenue against the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, whereby it has been held that the interest on enhanced compensation is taxable when the issue relating to enhanced compensation attains its finality as the same would accrue to the assessee at that time only.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had received an enhanced compensation and interest on enhanced compensation during the year under consideration. The assessee filed return of income and showed interest income on accrual basis from year to year. The Assessing Officer held that the income from interest received by the assessee has to be assessed in the year of its receipt.

3.

On appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide his order dated 7.3.2003 dismissed these appeals with the following observations:- “Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case it is held that the Assessing Officer was correct in bringing to tax the interest received by the appellant from HUDA on receipt basis. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bikram Singh & others has undoubtedly held that the appellant may spread his income over the years. But that is applicable to the facts of the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court has not held that in each and every case the appellant shall be entitled to spread its income. Each case has to be viewed with its own peculiarities. In this case, no books of accounts have been maintained. No returns have been filed for the earlier years to declare interest income. There was indeed no parameter or yardstick which could point out to the accrual of income in the form of interest, year to year, as the quantum on which the interest was to be calculated as also the period for which interest was to be calculated was itself fluid. The action of the Assessing Officer therefore, bringing to tax the interest on receipt basis is upheld and confirmed.”

4.

Aggrieved against this order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal following the order of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Padam Parkash (HUF) 104 TTJ 989 decided the issue in favour of the assessee with the following observations:- “We have perused the records and considered the matter carefully. There is no dispute that the entire enhanced compensation is pending in dispute before the High Court. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in case of Padam Parkash HUF (supra) has held that in case the interest payable on enhanced compensation is pending in dispute before Court, the interest would not accrue and could be subject to tax only when the enhanced compensation is finally determined.

Respectfully following the said decision, we reverse the order of CIT(A) and allow the claim of the assessee.”

5.

The revenue is in appeal before this Court challenging the order of Tribunal.

6.

Mr. Yogesh Putney, learned counsel appearing for the revenue, has argued that in view of Rama Bai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh (1990) 181 ITR 400, the interest on enhanced compensation for land compulsorily acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 awarded by the Court on a reference under Section 18 of the Act or on further appeal has to be taken to have accrued not on the date of the order of the Court granting enhanced compensation but on its having accrued year after year from the date of delivery of possession of the land till the date of such order, and such interest cannot be assessed to income-tax in one lump-sum in the year in which the order is made and therefore, the Tribunal has erred in law while holding that the interest on enhanced compensation is taxable when the issue relating to the enhanced compensation attains its finality as the same would accrue to the assessee at that time only. On the basis of the above said argument, counsel for the revenue has further argued that the following substantial question of law

arises from the order of the Tribunal for consideration of this Court. “Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in holding that assessment of interest cannot be made until the matter is finally settled by the High Court, in contradiction with the judgement of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryana following the judgement of Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Rama Bai (181 ITR 400) whereby interest on enhanced compensation is to be taxed on accrual basis irrespective of the pendency of appeal in higher courts in respect of enhanced compensation. [ITA No.176 of 05 and ITA No.177 of 05 in the cases of CIT, Faridabad v. Naresh Kumar and CIT, Faridabad v. Dilbagh Singh respectively?”

7.

We find no force in the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant. The point raised by the appellant is covered by the judgement of this Court in ITA No.490 of 2007 decided on 26.3.2008 wherein it has been held that the interest on enhanced compensation would not accrue till the issue of enhanced compensation is finally decided and thereafter on attaining the finality of determination of enhanced compensation by the Court, the interest accrued to the assessee has to be spread over on an annual basis right from the date of delivery of possession till the date of the order of the Court on the time basis.

8.

Consequently, in the light of the said authoritative pronouncement, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Tribunal.

Thus, no question of law, much less substantial question of law, survives for our consideration. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE April 8, 2008 ps

JUDGE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CM No.1084 of 2008 and Date of decision: 8.4.2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-Faridabad ......Appellant Versus Sh. Chet Ram Dagar, HUF, s/o Sh. Deep Chand Dagar, Village Jharsaintly, Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad ......Respondent (Assessment year 1999-2000) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant-revenue. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J . CM No.1084-CII of 2008

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 11 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of.

JUDGE April 8, 2008 ps

JUDGE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CM No.1086 of 2008 and Date of decision: 8.4.2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-Faridabad ......Appellant Versus Sh. Rohtash Singh Dagar, HUF, s/o Sh. Deep Chand Dagar, Village Jharsaintly, Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad ......Respondent (Assessment year 1999-2000) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant-revenue. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J . CM No.1086-CII of 2008

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 65 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of.

JUDGE April 8, 2008 ps

JUDGE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CM No.1088-CII of 2008 and Date of decision: 8.4.2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-Faridabad ......Appellant Versus Sh. Bharat Lal Dagar, HUF, s/o Sh. Deep Chand Dagar, Village Jharsaintly, Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad ......Respondent (Assessment year 1999-2000) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant-revenue. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J . CM No.1088-CII of 2008

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 38 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of.

JUDGE April 8, 2008 ps

JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →