CHANDI RAM vs. THE CIT, FARIDABAD

ITA/4/2005HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01068223200525 February 2008Author: MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG,MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL22 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

These appeals by various assessees (individuals and HUFs) are against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT held that the entire amount of additional compensation received by the assessees based on a District Judge's award is taxable as capital gains in the year of receipt under Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This applied even if 50% of the enhanced compensation was received under an interim order of an appellate authority, subject to furnishing security, pending the final decision of the State's appeal against the enhanced award. The assessees argued that amounts received under interim orders, subject to security and final adjudication, do not constitute 'receipt' for tax purposes until the right to receive is finally settled.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in taking a view contrary to its own previous decisions, specifically in ITR No. 26 of 1997 (CIT, Patiala vs. Shri Karanbir Singh) and ITA No. 695 of 2005 (CIT, Faridabad vs. Shri Prem Singh). These prior decisions, which were followed by the High Court, held that Section 45(5)(b) is attracted only when the assessee receives enhanced compensation pursuant to a final award or order of a court, tribunal, or authority. Amounts received under an interim order, subject to furnishing security and pending the final result, are not considered 'enhanced compensation' as contemplated by Section 45(5)(b) but are merely interim payments. The Court also found that Clause (c) to Section 45(5), inserted by the Finance Act, 2003, with effect from April 1, 2004, was not retrospective and therefore not applicable to the assessment years in question (1994-95 to 1998-99). The amendments were stated to apply from the assessment year 2004-2005 onwards. The Court concluded that the ITAT erred in applying the ratio of the Karnataka High Court in Chief Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Shantavva, which was contrary to the High Court's own established view. The substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessees.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on a correct interpretation of Section 45(5)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was correct in holding that additional compensation received by assessees pursuant to interim orders, subject to furnishing security, is taxable as capital gains in the year of receipt? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amounts received by the assessees fall within the ambit of Section 45(5)(b) of the Act, and that the decision in CIT vs. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. (1986) 161 ITR 524 no longer holds sway? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The expression 'received' in Section 45(5)(b) implies receipt of a finalized right to receive, not mere physical receipt under an interim order subject to security and final decision. The additional compensation should be taxed only upon final adjudication. The Tribunal erred in applying Section 45(5)(b) and in disregarding the precedent of CIT vs. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued that the amendment to Section 45(5) of the Act had not been noticed in prior judgments, suggesting that the insertion of Section 45(5) was specifically for charging enhanced compensation in the year of receipt. The revenue also relied on the Karnataka High Court's decision in Chief Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Shantavva (2004) 267 ITR 67.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 45,Section 45(5),Section 45(5)(b),Section 155,Section 155(16)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T. Appeals No. 4 to 7 of 2005 DATE OF DECISION : _____.02.2008 Shri Chandi Ram .... APPELLANT Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ..... RESPONDENT I.T.A. No. 415 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : _____.02.2008 Smt. Sheesh Kaur (Individual) .... APPELLANT Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ..... RESPONDENT I.T.A. No. 416 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : _____.02.2008 Shri Fateh Singh (HUF) .... APPELLANT Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ..... RESPONDENT -2- I.T.A. No. 417 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : _____.02.2008 Shri Sultan Singh (HUF) .... APPELLANT Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ..... RESPONDENT I.T.A. No. 433 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : _____.02.2008 Shri Ved Pal (HUF) .... APPELLANT Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ..... RESPONDENT I.T.A. No. 434 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : _____.02.2008 Shri Man Singh (HUF) .... APPELLANT Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ..... RESPONDENT -3- I.T.A. No. 435 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : _____.02.2008 Shri Nepal Singh (HUF) .... APPELLANT Versus The Commissioner of Income

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 45

All 1,374 judgments and leading authorities on Section 45 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →