SRI. RAMVALLABH ASAWA SINCE DECD. vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the appeal requires to be remanded. The substantial question of law was answered in the affirmative. The Court reasoned that the arguments concerning Sections 10(37) and 145A were not fully considered by the lower authorities. Section 10(37) provides for exemption of certain capital gains arising from the transfer of agricultural land under compulsory acquisition. Section 145A deals with the method of computation of income. The Court acknowledged that the assessee's arguments regarding these provisions were not canvassed before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, to ensure a proper assessment in accordance with law, particularly with reference to Sections 10(37) and 145A, the matter was remitted back to the competent authority for re-assessment. The ratio decidendi is that if substantial legal provisions relevant to the assessment were not considered by the lower authorities, and new arguments are raised before the appellate court, a remand for re-assessment is appropriate to ensure justice. The appeal was allowed in part, and the order under challenge was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Sri Ramvallabh Asawa (since deceased, represented by his LRs), filed an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, challenging the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2007-08. The dispute pertains to the assessment of income by way of interest and compensation. The assessee had declared this income on an accrual basis. The procedural history involves the Assessing Officer's order dated 31.01.2013, the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dated 29.01.2016, and the ITAT's order dated 03.08.2018, which confirmed the lower authorities' decisions. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal requires to be remanded in light of assessments made without reference to Section 10(37) and Section 145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law/mixed law and fact, turning on Sections 10(37) and 145A). Assessee's contention: The assessee, through their senior counsel, argued that the assessment should have considered Sections 10(37) and 145A of the Income Tax Act. The judgment notes reliance on Section 10(37), which deals with exemption of capital gains from compulsory acquisition of agricultural land, and Section 145A, which was substituted with effect from 01.04.2010. Revenue's contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, argued that the arguments now being advanced, relying on Sections 145A and 10(37), were not canvassed before the authorities below. Therefore, the new case requires examination by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Ghanshyam, which settled the law regarding computation of income on a receipt basis.
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.100057/2018 BETWEEN :
SRI RAMVALLABH ASAWA SINCE DECD. REP. BY HIS LRS SRI PADAM NARAYAN ASAWA S/O LATE RAMVALLABH ASAWA, AGED: 56 YEARS, R/AT: NO.22, NEHRU COLONY, 4TH CROSS, BALLARI-583 103. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI M.V.SESHACHALA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI GANGADHAR J. M., ADVOCATE)
AND :
THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-I, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, STAF ROAD,
BALLARI-583102.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SADEM ROAD, KALABURAGI-585105. ... 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.662/BANG/2016 DATED 03.08.2018 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 29.01.2016 AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE (ASSESSING OFFICER) ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY DATED 31.01.2013 PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08.
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 2007-08. 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 →- Beiersdorf Ag & Anr. vs. Duvac Cosmedics & Ors.Delhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Namastu Enterprise Private Limited vs. Kajalben Maheshbhai Kaklotar (Proprietor Of Khodal Enterprise) And AnrDelhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Haveli Restaurant And Resorts LTD vs. Shubham Food EnterprisesDelhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Zydus Wellness Products LTD vs. Tushar Chimanlal Chitalia & Ors.Delhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Jsw Mg Motor INDIA Private Limited & Anr. vs. Tristar Auto Agencies (Vizag) Private LimitedDelhi · 3 Nov 2026