ANIL KUMAR,NEW DEL;HI vs. ITO, WARD-44(4), NEW DELHI

The facts in brief are that the assessee is a farmer and his land was acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act and has received compensation. However, after the Court’s direction, enhanced compensation was awarded amounting to Rs.76,11,500/- u/s. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The ld. Assessing Officer has treated the said amount as interest and has taxed the same after invoking the provision of Section 57(iv) and has disallowed 50% of the amount, i.e. Rs.38,05,750/-.

Ld. CIT (A) has passed the ex parte order stating that notice was sent on the address mentioned in form no.35 and no compliance has been made by the assessee.

Before us, learned counsel submitted that the assessee is a farmer living in an average. The said notices could not be served upon him, further here the land acquired was agriculture land in which assessee was carrying out agriculture activity, therefore, in view of Section 10(37), such an amount cannot be taxed as revenue receipt.

Ld. DR on the other hand, submitted that the conditions laid down in Section 10(37) needs to be satisfied, i.e., whether the said land was an agriculture land in terms of section 2(14) and the said land used for agriculture purposes. Therefore, the matter should be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer so that all these conditions can be verified.

After considering the aforesaid submissions and on perusal of the material referred to before him at the time of hearing, I find that entire issue revolves around taxing of enhanced compensation received by the assessee in terms of Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The ld. Assessing Officer has taxed 50% of the said enhanced compensation as interest u/s.56 (2)(vii) and 57(iv). However, if the assessee has received compensation under compulsory acquisition under any law and such a land is situated in the area referred to in item (a) or item (b) of sub clause (iii) of Clause (14) of Section 2; and such land during the period of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer was being used for agriculture purposes, then in terms of Section 10(37) the same cannot be taxed. In my opinion this issue should be remanded back to the file of Assessing Officer, who shall examine the conditions given in Section 10(37) and give appropriate relief to the assessee. The assessee shall co-operate with the Assessing Officer in substantiating the condition laid down u/s.10 (37). With this observation, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.