CIT vs. SHAILENDER JAIN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . 21.012.2010 . . Present: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant/Revenue. . . + ITA 2064/2010 . Certain lands belonging to the mother of the assessee herein was acquired by the State of Haryana under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Compensation thereof was fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector. The assessee was not satisfied about the said compensation and, therefore, she preferred an appeal thereagainst to the appellate Court i.e. the Court of the Additional District Judge, Haryana. The Additional District Judge, Haryana enhanced the compensation and order to that effect was passed in the assessment year in question i.e. assessment years 2000-01. The State of Haryana did not accept this order of the ADJ enhancing the compensation and filed an appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. This appeal was pending adjudication. In the Income-Tax Return filed by the assessee for this assessment year, the assessee did not show the enhanced compensation as his income on the ground that this was still in inchoate state, inasmuch as, the State of Haryana had filed an appeal challenging the order of the ADJ and, therefore, income has not crystallized. The Assessing Officer did not accept this plea and added the amount of enhanced compensation as the income of the assessee. This order was upheld by the CIT (A) and the assessee accepted the order and paid tax. The Assessing Officer, however, initiated penalty proceedings under the provisions of Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income-Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act?), for not disclosing the aforesaid enhanced compensation as income in the Income-Tax Return filed by the assessee. The penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer has been deleted by the Tribunal. It is, inter alia, pointed out by the Tribunal that the issue as to whether the aforesaid enhanced compensation which is subject matter of challenge would be treated as income accruing in the concerned assessment year or not was a debatable issue. It is pointed out by the Tribunal that this Court in the case of Chandi Ram and Ors. Vs. CIT, 217 CTR 113 has held that enhanced compensation is chargeable to tax under Section 45(5) (b) of the Act only in the year in which the assessee receives the same in pursuance of final award/order of the Tribunal, court order or any other authority increasing the compensation. If any amount is received after stay of the award in pursuance of any interim order, as payment, subject to the final result, it will not be an amount received as enhanced compensation under Section 45 (5) (b) of the Act. It is thus observed that this legal position was prevailing as on the date when the assessee filed the Income-Tax Return. It is a different matter that the aforesaid ruling of this Court has been overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Product, 322 ITR 158 in the year 2009. Because of the above, the issue was debatable and, therefore, the ITAT rightly deleted the penalty. We find that there is no substantial question of law which arises for our consideration. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. . . . . A.K. SIKRI, J. . SURESH KAIT, J. DECEMBER 21, 2010 skb . . . #18