INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 & TPS , BAGALKOT vs. SHRI PRABHAYYA BASAYYA SARAGANACHANI , BAGALKOT

Per Jason P Boaz, Accountant Member

This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 25.01.2018 of the CIT(Appeals), Belagavi relating to assessment year 2014-15.

ITA No.858/Bang/2018 Page 2 of 16

2.1 An extent of 10.06 acres of the assessee’s land, being 40% share of 25 acres 16 guntas bearing No.81/2002 in Haveli Village, Bagalkot was compulsorily acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer [hereinafter referred to as “the SLAO”], Bagalkot under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide Notification dated 11.08.1999. Aggrieved by the award as originally passed awarding compensation for the land acquired by the Govt., the co-owners had filed a reference for enhanced compensation. The SLAO, Bagalkot vide order dated 12.07.2013 awarded enhanced compensation and interest which was paid on 15.09.2013. The details of enhanced compensation and interest on enhanced compensation awarded are as follows:-

2.2 The question is with regard to taxability of the sum of Rs.2,71,35,973/- which the assessee received as interest on enhanced compensation. Under the provisions of section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) enhanced compensation received on acquisition of agricultural lands is exempt. The provisions of section 10(37) of the Act reads as follows:

ITA No.858/Bang/2018 Page 3 of 16

“Section 10(37): Capital Gain on compulsory acquisition of urban Agricultural Land: In the case of an assessee, being an individual or a Hindu individual family, any income chargeable under the head” Capital gain” arising from the transfer of agricultural land, shall be exempted, where : 1. Such land is situate in any area referred to in, item (a) or item (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of Section 2 2. Such land, during the period of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer, was being used for agricultural purposes by such Hindu undivided family or individual, or a parent of his 3. 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 4. Such income has arisen from the compensation or consideration for such transfer received by such assesses on or after the 1st day of April, 2004. It may be noted in this connection that exemption is available only if compulsory acquisition has taken place on or after 1-4-2004. Exemption is also available if acquisition has taken place before 1-4-2004 but compensation has been received on or after 1-4-2004. For the purposes of this clause, the expression, compensation or consideration” includes the compensation or consideration enhanced or further enhanced by any court, tribunal or other authority.”

The assessees claimed that interest received by them is nothing but compensation and therefore even for the interest portion received, exemption u/s. 10(37) of the Act is applicable. The AO, however, was of

ITA No.858/Bang/2018 Page 4 of 16

the view that interest on enhanced compensation was chargeable to tax under the provisions of section 57(iv) r.w.s. 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 145A(b) of the Act. These provisions read as follows:-

“Deductions. 57. The income chargeable under the head "Income from other sources" shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely :— (i) …………….. (ii) …………… (iii) ………………. (iv) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clause (viii) of sub-section (2) of section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent of such income and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this section.”

“Income from other sources. 56. (1) Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, items A to E. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", namely :— (i) …………………….. to (vii) …………………….. (viii) income by way of interest received on compensation or on enhanced compensation referred to in clause (b) of section 145A;”

Method of accounting in certain cases. “145A. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 145,— (a) ………………

ITA No.858/Bang/2018 Page 5 of 16

(b) interest received by an assessee on compensation or on enhanced compensation, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be the income of the year in which it is received.”

2.3 The AO rejected the claim of exemption u/s. 10(37) of the Act and held that interest is chargeable to tax in the year of receipt, irrespective of the period for which the interest is calculated. The following were the relevant observations of the AO:-

“7.1 I have gone through the submission of the assessee in detail and find that the same lack merit and do not apply to the case of the assessee for the A.Y. 2014-2015. The assessee has quoted the provisions of sections 23, 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and explained factors to determine enhanced compensation and then drawn similarity between the amounts payable U/s-23(1A) and 28 of that Act and concluded that they are in the nature of enhanced compensation only. The reliance placed on the various judgment of the Apex Court and other Judicial Authorities are all related to the assessments made for the Assessment Year's 2009-10 and earlier. The assessee's claim that the interest component of Rs.5,19,42,677/- received in the enhanced compensation awarded vide the order dated 12-07-2013 as exempt as per the provisions of section 10(37) of the I.T.Act, 1961 on the support of the judicial decision cited above is incorrect and not acceptable in the light of the new provision 56(2)(viii) of the I.T.Act, 1961 which is applicable for the A.Y. 2010- 11 and onwards. Now, as per the provisions of section 56(2)(viii) of the I.T.Act, 1961 inserted w.e.f. 01-04-2010, income by way of interest received on compensation or on enhanced compensation shall be chargeable to tax under the head " Income from Other Sources" and clause (b) of Section 145 specifies the year of accounting of this income as the year in which it is received. The section 56(2)(viii) is unambiguous on this issue and includes interest of any nature and kind without making any distinction of interest received under different provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Hence, the interest of Rs. 5,19,42,677/- received on compensation or on enhanced compensation does not qualify for treatment as enhanced value of the asset and has to be brought to tax under the head " Income from Other Sources".

ITA No.858/Bang/2018 Page 6 of 16

In the circumstances, Rs. 5,19,42,677/- /- being interest 8. received as per the order dated 12-07-2013 is treated as the income of the assessee and added back to the total income subject to allowing the deduction of 50% as per the provisions of section 57(iv) of the I.T.Act, 1961”

The assessment was accordingly concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.05.2016; wherein the assessee’s income was determined at Rs.2,71,35,970/-.

3.1 Aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 31.05.2016 for Assessment Year 2014-15, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), Belgavi. The contention of the assessee before the CIT(Appeals) was that interest on enhanced compensation awarded to the assessee was in terms of section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and such interest was in the nature of compensation falling within the ambit of section 10(37) of the Act. The assessee in support of its contention placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of in Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai v. Income-tax Officer-TDS-1-Surat [2016] 70 taxmann.com 45 (Guj).

3.2 The CIT(Appeals) accepted the plea of the assessee and held that assessee’s share in interest to the extent of Rs.2,71,35,973/- which was interest awarded u/s. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 partook the character of compensation for land acquired and fell within the ambit of section 10(37) of the Act and to that exempt was exempt. The remaining sum of Rs.58,28,907/- was brought to tax as income from other sources after allowing deduction of 50% u/s. 57(iv) of the Act. The following were the relevant observations of the CIT(Appeals):-

ITA No.858/Bang/2018 Page 7 of 16

“9. The facts of the present case are similar to the case discussed in the case of Ghanshyam (HUF) before Hon'ble Supreme Court. The ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court is applicable to the present case. Observation made by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat makes it clear that amendment made under section 145A in 2009 does not alter the position of treating interest received under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Faridabad Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) is latest decision on the issue. In Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) this distinction was made and a clear finding's was given to treat interest received u/s 28 at par with compensation. Subsequently, various Hon'ble High Courts have consistently followed Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) case. Hence, Ghanshyam (HUE) (supra) is most relevant to the facts of the present case. From the above discussion, it is decided that the interest received u/s 28 of the LA Act, (unlike interest u/s 34) is due to the accretion to the value of the land and hence it is part of the enhanced compensation for acquisition of the land. Therefore this amount shall be treated as a part of the compensation awarded for compulsory acquisition of land cases. Cases relied by the Assessing Officer are distinguishable on facts. Ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Ghanshyam (HUF) supra is applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence treating this amount as interest under Income from other sources assessed by the Assessing Officer is not in accordance with law. This amount of interest received under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act is eligible for exemption u/s 10(37) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer's finding is that due to amendments in Finance Act, 2009 under section 145A and 56(2)(viii), the interest received on compensation/enhanced compensation be taxed under income from other sources is not correct, in view of the clear findings given by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in relation to interest received under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 9.1 From the facts it is observed that interest received of Rs. 12,99,84,630/-is under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 out of total amount received of Rs. 20,24,52,977/-. Interest received under section 28 is eligible for exemption under section 10(37) of Income-tax Act, as discussed in above paras.

ITA No.858/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 16

Assessing Officer is directed to allow the interest received under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act at par with enhanced compensation and allow exemption u/s 10(37) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 9.2 Interest was received of Rs.58,28,907/- u/s 34 of LA Act. AR and appellant argued that appellant's share is only 40% of total amount received. Appellant requested to consider his share for taxation out of the compensation amount received. 9.3 The appellant's contention is not accepted as the family agreement of share of compensation was made much after the receipt of amount of initial compensation was awarded. Land Acquisition Authority, recognized only the assessee as legal heir and paid the whole compensation to the assessee only. AR could not prove with any evidence that the compensation is legally belongs to other family members. In the absence of any authentic reliable evidence, Appellants plea for share of 40% to his share cannot be accepted. Hence, the whole amount of interest received of Rs.58,28,907/- u/s 34 of L A Act by the appellant to be taxed in the hands of appellant only. During the hearing proceedings, appellant himself attended and consented for including the whole of interest received u/s 34 in his hands as his income. Hence, interest received of Rs.58,28,907/- is to be treated as income from other sources in the hands of appellant and be taxed after allowing 50% of deduction u/s 57 of Income-tax Act,1961.”

4.1 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the CIT(Appeals), Belgavi dated 25.01.2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal; wherein it has raised the following grounds:

(1) The learned CIT(Appeals), erred in not appreciating the amended provisions of section 56(2)(viii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as per which, with effect from 1.4.2010 i.e. Assessment Year 2010-11 onwards, "income by way of interest received on compensation or on enhanced

ITA No.858/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 16

compensation.." is taxable under section 56(2)(viii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. (2) The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in coming to the conclusion that the interest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is cost accretion to the capital asset and cannot be taxed under section 56(2)(viii) relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Faridabad v. Ghanshyam (HUF) 315 ITR 1 (SC) which was applicable on the issue prior to A.Y. 2010-11 before the amendment to section 56 of the I.T. Act, 1961. (3) The leanred CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the sub-clause (viii) to sub-section (2) of section 56 was amended to nullify the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rama Bai v. CIT (1990) 181 ITR 400 (SC) which is not correct as for this purpose, section 145A(b) was amended to bring to interest income in the year of receipt instead of year after year on accrual basis. (4) The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in coming to the conclusion that the ratio of the decision of Ghanshyam (HUF) supra, is still applicable in respect of interest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act ignoring the unambiguous provisions of section 56(2)(viii) of the I.T. Act, 1961, brought on the statute w.e.f 1.04.2010 to bring to tax as income from other sources all interests either it is under section 34 or 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. (5) The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in coming to the conclusion that the interest under section 28 of the LAA, is accretion to the cost of asset and not liable to tax as income from other sources when the provisions brought on the Statute is very clear, unambiguous and specifically brought to bring to tax interest on compensation and enhanced compensation. (6) In the facts and in law, the order of the learned CIT(A) be set aside and the order of the Assessing Officer be restored in view of specific provisions of section 56(2)(viii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 which provides taxation of interest on compensation and enhanced compensation without distinction or definition if at all given in the Land Acquisition Act.

ITA No.858/Bang/2018 Page 10 of 16

(7) For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) may be set aside and that the order of the Assessing Officer be restored.

The learned AR for the assessee was heard in support of the grounds raised and in this regard submitted that the issue for consideration is covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Basavaraj M. Kundarikannur and others Vs. ITO in ITA No.1747 and 1750/Bang/2017 dated 01.06.2018.

4.2 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. As submitted by the learned AR for the assessee, the issue for consideration before us are squarely covered by the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Basavaraj M. Kudarikannu and another Vs. ITO, Ward 1 and TPS, Bangalore. In the aforesaid order in ITA Nos. 1747 and 1750/Bang/2017 dated 01.06.2018, the Co-ordinate Bench at paras 11 to 14 thereof has held as under:

We have heard the rival submissions of the ld. DR, who relied 11. upon the order of the AO. We have considered the submissions of the ld. DR. It is not disputed by the AO that the land acquired was agricultural land and the conditions laid down u/s. 10(37)(i) to (iv) are applicable to the land which is in question which was compulsorily acquired. It is also not in dispute that the interest in question was interest awarded u/s. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the given circumstances, we are of the view that the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai (supra) will be applicable to the facts of the present case.

ITA No.858/Bang/2018 Page 11 of 16

In Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai v. Income-tax Officer-TDS- 12. 1-Surat [2016] 70 taxmann.com 45 (Gujarat), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court had to deal with the nature of the interest awarded u/s.28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The facts of the case before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court was that the petitioner's agricultural lands came to be acquired under the provisions of the Act of 1894 for the public purpose of the Ozat-2 Irrigation Scheme. The award passed by the Collector came to be challenged by the petitioner before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh (hereinafter referred to as the "Reference Court"), who by an order dated 20th March, 2011 awarded additional compensation of Rs. 5,01,846/- in favour of the petitioner together with other statutory benefits. Pursuant to such award, the second respondent calculated the amount payable to the petitioner and in terms of the statement showing the amount of compensation to be deposited in the court, computed an amount of Rs. 20,74,157/- as payable to the petitioner by way of interest under section 28 of the Act of 1894. The petitioner made an application under section 197(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) for deciding the tax liability of interest and to issue a certificate as to NIL tax liability. The application was rejected on the ground that the interest amount on the delayed payment of compensation and enhanced value of compensation is taxable as per the provisions of section 57(iv) read with sections 56(2)(viii) and 145A(b) of the Act under the head income from other sources. Being aggrieved by such order, the Assessee filed writ petition before Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. The question before the Court was whether interest awarded u/s.28 of the Act of 1894 is akin to compensation and chargeable to tax u/s.45(5) of the Act or under the head “Income from other sources” u/s.57(iv) read with Sec.56(2)(viii) and 145A(b) of the Act. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that interest under section 28 of the Act of

ITA No.858/Bang/2018 Page 12 of 16

1894 is an accretion to compensation and forms part of the compensation and, therefore, exigible to tax under section 45(5) of the Act. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court followed the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 182 Taxman 368, wherein it was held that interest under section 28 of the Act of 1894 is part of the amount of compensation whereas interest under section 34 thereof is only for delay in making payment after the compensation amount is determined. Interest under section 28 is a part of the enhanced value of the land which is not the case in the matter of payment of interest under section 34. On the applicability of the provisions of Sec.57(iv) read with 56(2)(viii) and Sec.145A(b) of the Act, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held, :-

“Section 145A of the I.T. bears the heading "Method of accounting in certain cases". Section 145A(b) provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 145, interest received by an assessee on compensation or on enhanced compensation, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be the income of the year in which it is received. Clause (viii) of sub-section (2) of section 56 of the I.T. Act provides for income by way of interest received on compensation or on enhanced compensation referred to in clause (b) of section 145A which is chargeable as income from other sources. The first respondent Income Tax Officer seeks to tax the interest received by the petitioner under section 28 of the Act of 1894 as income from other sources under section 56(2)(viii) read with section 145A(b) of the I.T. Act. In the opinion of this court, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra), the interest received under section 28 of the Act of 1894 would not fall within the ambit of the expression "interest" as envisaged under section 145A(b) of the I.T. Act, inasmuch as, the Supreme Court in the above decision has held that interest under section 28 of the Act of 1894 is not in the nature of interest but is an accretion to the compensation and, therefore, forms part of the compensation.”

ITA No.858/Bang/2018 Page 13 of 16

It was argued on behalf of the Revenue before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam (HUF) was rendered prior to the substitution of section 145A of the I.T. Act by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1st April, 2010, and hence, would have no applicability cases pertaining to AY 2010-11 and afterwards. Such an argument was repelled by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court as follows:

“11. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the first respondent that the above decision has been rendered prior to the substitution of section 145A of the I.T. Act by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1st April, 2010, and hence, would have no applicability to the facts of the present case. The scope and effect of the substitution (with effect from 1st April, 2010) of section 145A, as also amendment made in section 56(2) by Act 33 of 2009 have been elaborated in the following portion of the departmental circular No. 5/2010, dated 3.6.2010, as follows: "Rationalizing the provisions for taxation of interest received on delayed compensation or on enhanced compensation.-

46.1 The existing provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, provide that income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" or "Income from other sources", shall be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Rama Bai v. CIT (1990) 84 CTR (SC) 164 : (1990) 181 ITR 400 (SC) has held that arrears of interest computed on delayed or enhanced compensation shall be taxable on accrual basis. This has caused undue hardship to the taxpayers. 46.2 With a view to mitigate the hardship, section 145A is amended to provide that the interest received by an assessee on compensation or enhanced compensation shall be deemed to be his income for the year in which it was received, irrespective of the method of accounting followed by the assessee. 46.3 Further, clause (viii) is inserted in sub-section (2) of the section 56 so as to provide that income by way of interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation referred to in clause (b) of

ITA No.858/Bang/2018 Page 14 of 16

section 145A shall be assessed as "income from other sources" in the year in which it is received. 46.4 Applicability. - This amendment has been made applicable with effect from 1st April, 2010, and it will accordingly apply in relation to assessment year 2010-11 and subsequent assessment years." Thus, the substitution of section 145A by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 was not in connection with the decision of the Supreme Court in Ghanshyam (HUF)'s case (supra) but was brought in to mitigate the hardship caused to the assessee on account of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rama Bai v. CIT [1990] 181 ITR 400/[1991] 54 Taxman 496 whereby it was held that arrears of interest computed on delayed or enhanced compensation shall be taxable on accrual basis. Therefore, when one reads the words "interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation" in section 145A of the I.T. Act, the same have to be construed in the manner interpreted by the Supreme Court in Ghanshyam (HUF)'s case (supra).”

The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court finally concluded, as follows: 13.

“13. The upshot of the above discussion is that since interest under section 28 of the Act of 1894, partakes the character of compensation, it does not fall within the ambit of the expression "interest" as contemplated in section 145A of the I.T. Act. The first respondent - Income Tax Officer was, therefore, not justified in refusing to grant a certificate under section 197 of the I.T. Act to the petitioner for non- deduction of tax at source, inasmuch as, the petitioner is not liable to pay any tax under the head "income from other sources" on the interest paid to it under section 28 of the Act of 1894. 14. The petitioner had earlier challenged the communication dated 9th February, 2015 whereby its application for a certificate under section 197 of the I.T. Act had been rejected, and subsequently, tax on the interest payable under section 28 of the Act of 1894 has already been deducted at source. Consequently, the challenge to the above communication has become infructuous and hence, the prayer clause came to be modified. However, since the amount paid under section 28 of the Act of 1894 forms part of the compensation and not interest, the second respondent was not justified in deducting tax at source under section 194A of the I.T. Act in respect of such amount. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to refund of the amount wrongly deducted under section 194A of the I.T. Act.”

ITA No.858/Bang/2018 Page 15 of 16

In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High 14. Court and in the light of the admitted factual position in the present case, we are of the view that the CIT(Appeals) is fully justified in allowing exemption u/s. 10(37) of the Act on the interest received by the assessee u/s. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. We find no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders of the CIT(Appeals).”

4.3 Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Basavaraj M. Kudarikannur in ITA Nos. 1747 and 1750/Bang/2017 dated 01.06.2018, and in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Movaliya Bhikubhai Balabhai Vs. ITO, TDS, Surat (supra) and the admitted factual position in the case on hand, we are of the view that the CIT(A) is justified in allowing exemption u/s 10(37) of the Act on interest received by the assessee u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 and therefore uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. Consequently, Revenue grounds are dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on 13.03.2019. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (N. V. VASUDEVAN) (JASON P BOAZ) Vice President Accountant Member Bangalore. Dated: 13.03.2019. /NS/

ITA No.858/Bang/2018 Page 16 of 16

Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore.