COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JALANDHAR vs. K.D.PRABHAKAR(HUF)C/O GOPAL DASS KHURMA

ITR No.3 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR No.3 of 2002 Date of decision: 03.02.2014 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar ……Applicant Vs. Shri K.D.Prabhakar (HUF), C/o Gopal Dass Khurma Ram, Phagwara …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY Present: Mr.Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the revenue. None for the respondent. . Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. At the instance of the revenue, the following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this Court by the Tribunal for the assessment year 1981-82 arising out of its consolidated order dated 26.11.1997 passed in ITA Nos.487 to 495 (ASR)/1996 in respect of assessment years 1974-75 to 1982-83 :- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT is right in law in reversing the order of the learned DCIT(A) who upheld the order of the Assessing Officer passed under Section 154 holding that no mistake was apparent from records in so far as charging of interest under sections 139(8) and 215/217 was concerned, for the assessment year 1981-82?” 2. Briefly, the facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as available on the record, may be noticed. Assessment was Singh Gurbax 2014.02.18 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

ITR No.3 of 2002 2 originally completed at total income of ` 20,080/- plus agricultural income of ` 700/-. Subsequently, in the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1990-91, it came to the notice of the Assessing officer that the assessee had received additional compensation as also interest thereon as a result of judgment dated 12.7.1988 of this Court on account of compulsory acquisition of the land by the State Government. Thereafter, the assessee furnished returns of income for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1990-91 disclosing therein interest income as also appropriate amount of capital gain arising out of the said compulsory acquisition of land by the State Government. According to the Assessing officer, since the interest was allowed by this court right from the assessment year 1974-75 to the date of payment of additional compensation which was received during assessment year 1990-91, such interest was assessable for the respective assessment years on accrual basis in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Rama Bai and others vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1990) 181 ITR 400 but the assessee did so only for and from the assessment years 1984-85 onwards. Therefore, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated and notices under section 148 were issued to the assessee by post on 31.1.1992 for the assessment years 1974-75 to 1983-84. The assessee filed return declaring income of ` 45,130/- plus agricultural income of ` 700/- for the year under assessment but under protest. Assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 19.8.1993 at total income of ` 45,130/- plus agricultural income of ` 700/-. Interest under sections 139(8) and 215/217 was charged at ` 29,936/-. Against the interest, the asessee moved an application dated 28.7.1995 under Section 154 of the Act stating that Singh Gurbax 2014.02.18 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

ITR No.3 of 2002 3 interest was not chargeable as in the case of other co-owners, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] had held that such interest was not chargeable. The Assessing officer rejected the application vide order dated 12.9.1995. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [DCIT (A)], who vide order dated 30.9.1996 dismissed the same. Still not satisfied with the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 26.11.1997, the Tribunal allowed the appeal while setting aside the order of the DCIT(A) and restoring the matter back to the Assessing officer to decide the application under section 154 of the Act afresh. Hence the present reference at the instance of the revenue. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue does not dispute that identical issue raised herein stands concluded against the revenue in ITR No.23 of 2002, The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar v. Shri K.D.Prabhakar (HUF), decided on 14.8.2007 in the case of the assessee itself. 5. In view of the above, the question referred is answered against the revenue. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge February 03, 2014

(Anita Chaudhry) ‘gs’ Judge Singh Gurbax 2014.02.18 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh