SRI.PADAMANARAYANA ASAWA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONEOR OF
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the substantial question of law is answered in the affirmative. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part, and the order under challenge is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the competent authority for re-assessment. The re-assessment is to be conducted in accordance with law, with particular reference to Sections 10(37) and 145A of the Income Tax Act. The reasoning is based on the Revenue's concession that the new arguments regarding Sections 10(37) and 145A were not canvassed before the lower authorities and thus require examination by the Assessing Officer. The High Court acknowledged that Section 10(37) was inserted from 01.04.2005 and Section 145A was substituted from 01.04.2010, implying these provisions might be relevant for the assessment year 2004-05, necessitating a fresh look. No costs were awarded.
What were the facts?
The appeal is filed by the assessee, Sri Padamanarayana Asawa, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bengaluru. The assessment year in question is 2004-05. The assessee is challenging the ITAT's order in ITA No.1045/Bang/2012 & C.O.No.200/Bang/2015 dated 18.11.2015. The appeal before the High Court is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee seeks to set aside the ITAT's order and confirm the order of the Appellate Commissioner. The dispute pertains to the method of computation of income, specifically interest and compensation amounts declared on an accrual basis.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal requires to be remanded in light of assessments made without reference to Section 10(37) and 145A of the Income Tax Act? (Question of law/mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argues that the assessments were made without considering the provisions of Section 10(37) and Section 145A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee relies on Section 10(37) which deals with exemption of capital gains on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land and Section 145A which deals with the method of computation of income. The assessee implicitly argues that these provisions were not properly applied or considered by the authorities below. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contends that the arguments now being advanced by the assessee, relying on Sections 145A and 10(37), were not canvassed before the authorities below. The Revenue submits that the new case now being presented by the assessee requires examination by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue also notes that the law regarding the method of computation of income was settled by the Apex Court in CIT vs. Ghanshyam, which held that computation should be on a receipt basis. The Revenue further argues that Section 10(37) was inserted with effect from 01.04.2005 and Section 145A was substituted with effect from 01.04.2010, and the applicability of these provisions to the assessment year 2004-05 needs to be considered by the original authority.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BELLUNKE A.S.
I.T.A.NO.100041/2016 BETWEEN : SRI PADAMANARAYANA ASAWA SON & LEGAL HEIR OF LATE RAMVALLABH ASAWA AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT. NO.22, NEHRU COLONY, 4TH CROSS, BALLARI-583103. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI M.V.SESHACHALA SENIOR COUNSEL FOR GANGADHAR J.M., ADVOCATE)
AND :
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONEOR OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-I, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, STAFF ROAD, BALLARI-583 102.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SADEM ROAD, KALABURAGI-585 105.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE)
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.1045/BANG/2012 & C.O.NO.200/BANG/2015 DATED 18.11.2015 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T Heard the learned senior counsel Sri Seshachala along with Sri G.M.Gangadhar learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Y.V.Raviraj, Senior standing counsel for the Revenue in detail. 2. The substantial question of law that arises for consideration is: “Whether the appeal requires to be remanded in the light of the fact that assessments have been made without reference to Section 10(37) and 145A of the Income Tax Act?” 3. The learned counsel for the Revenue would vehemently submit that the arguments now being advanced, by placing a reliance on Sections 145A and 10(37) of the Income Tax Act is not the
case that was canvassed before the authorities below and that the new case now being canvassed by the appellant requires to be examined by the Assessing Officer, which is not in dispute that is for the Assessment Year 2004-05. The income by way of interest and the compensation amount were declared on accrual basis. That the law with regard to the method of computation of the income came to be settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ghanshyam [(2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC)], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to lay down the law that the computation of income sought to be made on receipt basis. 4. It is not in dispute that under the amended provision of sub-section 37 of section 10 of the Income Tax Act the income in the case of an assessee, being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, any income chargeable under the head “Capital Gains” arising from the transfer of agricultural land and such transfer is by way of
compulsory acquisition under any law, or a transfer the consideration for which is determined or approved by the Central Government or the Reserve Bank of India and where such income has arisen from the compensation or consideration for such transfer received by such assessee on or after received, such income would not form part of the total income. 5. Learned counsel for the revenue would vehemently contend that the point now raised by the learned Senior Counsel is not a case that has been canvassed before the Assessing Officer and hence the same requires to be appreciated by the Original Authority. 6. During the course of arguments, the learned Senior counsel placed reliance on the provisions of Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act which undoubtedly came to be inserted vide amendment dated 01.04.2005 and the provision of
Section 145A came to be substituted with effect from 01.04.2010. 7. In that view of the matter, the substantial question of law is answered in the affirmative. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The order under challenge is set aside. The appeal is remitted back to the competent authority for re-assessment in accordance with law and more particularly with reference to Sections 10(37) and 145A of the Income Tax Act. In that view of the matter, there shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE EM/kmv
More judgments on Section 10(37)
- Rameshbhai Gordhanbhai Dudhagara, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 738/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Rameshbhai Gordhanbhai Dudhagara, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 738/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Naresh Kumar, Gurgaon, Haryana vs PCIT, JaipurITA 209/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Sudhakar Purushottam Bhalerao, Osmanabad vs ITO Ward 1, LaturITA 2882/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Kumar Satish, Gurugram vs ITO Ward 2(2), GurugramITA 6552/DEL/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Ritika Ispat PVT. Limited, Balanda, Sundargarh vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S.Ritika Ispat PVT. LTD.,Balanda, Sundergarh vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Biswanath Pradhan vs. The Principal Commnr., CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S.Ritika Ispat PVT. LTD.,Balanda, Sundergarh vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Shree Sai Jagannath, Rourkela, Sundargarh vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026