SRI BASAVAPRABHU APPASAHEB SIRANADGOUDA,BAGALKOT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, VIJAYAPURA

ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has filed by assessee against order dated 27/06/2019 passed by the CIT(A), Belagavi for assessment year 2015- 16 on following grounds of appeal:- The Ld.AO noted that asseesee in the original return of income wherein assessee shown the additional compensation as interest under Section 56(vii) and offered it to tax. However during the course of the assessment proceedings, assessee claimed that, additional compensation received during the financial year relevant to assessment year under consideration to be exempt by way of revised Page 2 of return of income. The Ld.AO did not consider the revised return filed by assessee and accepted the original return of income. Against the assessment, assessee filed application under section 154 of the Act, which was also rejected. Against the 154 order, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by assessee by observing as under: 9. The assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer accepting the return of income filed the assessee only. No new additions were made by the AO. The AR’s contention was to accept the revised return of income but it was beyond the time specified under the Act. Hence, it cannot be accepted as valid return of income. There was no mistake apparent from record to rectify the original assessment order by passing order u/s.154. Therefore, the order passes by the AO is in accordance with law. The application for revision of order u/s.264 may be filed by the assessee of any omission or commission which is favourable to the assessee, if other conditions are satisfied.

10. The order passed by the Assessing Officer in rejecting the petition u/s.154 is in accordance with law. Hence I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Assessing officer.” Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Condonation application dated 12/08/21 At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that there is a delay of 2 days in filing the present appeal. It is submitted that the delay is for the reason that assessee wanted to understand the legal outcome of the issue and the discussion with the authorized representative caused delay of 2 days. The Ld.Sr.DR though objected, could not oppose that there is a reasonable cause. Considering the submission of the assessee in his affidavit, we condone the delay of 2 days and admit the appeal to be decided on merit.

Page 3 of We have heard the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. The Ld.AR before us relied on Circular 36 issued by the CBDT dated 25/10/2016 and provisions of section 24 of RFCTLARR Act, which read as under:- "24. Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,-- (a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or (b) where an award under section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act, but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of beneficiaries, then, all beneficieries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act." The Ld A.R submitted that the provisions of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 shall apply to the case of the assessee also and that revenue authorities have not considered section 24 and other provisions of RFCTLARR Act. She submitted that the Land Acquisition Act shall apply to the land acquired that was used for