Halimaben M.Modan, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-6(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1089/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9983 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Capital asset; Additional evidence; Fair market value
• Section: 143(3); 45(5); 5(2); 56; 28

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.1089/AHD/2013 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2008-09 HALIMABEN M. MODAN GABI PHALIA, NR.MASJID TAL. DHANDUKA DIST. AHMEDABAD. VS. ITO, WARD - 6(2) AHMEDABAD. ( APPLICANT ) ( RESPONENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. PATEL, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI JAMESH KURIAN, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 27/09/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21/11/2016 +,/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-XI, AHMEDABAD DATED 21.2.2013 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008- 09. 2. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THREE GROUNDS OF A PPEAL, BUT HER GRIEVANCE REVOLVES AROUND A SINGLE ISSUE WHEREBY SH E HAS PLEADED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF R S.19,35,706/-. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 25.11.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT NIL. HER CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PA SSED ON 30.11.2010 UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61. THE LD.AO HAS ITA NO.1089/AHD/2013 2 DETERMINED TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.30, 91,840/-. IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN ILLITERATE LADY. HER AGRICULTURE LAND WAS ACQUIRED BY SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LTD. (SSN N). WHILE PAYING COMPENSATION, BANK HAS DEDUCTED TDS AT SOURCE OF RS .13,599/-. THE ASSESSEE IS AN AGRICULTURIST. SHE HAS NO OTHER SOURCE OF IN COME. SHE HAS NEVER FILED HER RETURN. SHE WANTED TO CLAIM REFUND OF TDS. THEREF ORE, SHE GOT PAN AND FURNISHED RETURN ON 25.11.2008. THE LD.AO TREATED ALLEGED INTEREST RECEIVED FROM SSNN AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE ASSESSED IT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. SIMILARLY, THERE WAS A CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.27,58,993/- DATED 17.1.2008 AND RS.2,00,818/- DATED 18.3.2008 IN HER BANK ACCOUNT WHICH WAS ALSO RECEIVED FROM SSNN AS COMPENSATION IN LIEU OF HER LAND. THE LD.AO HAS TREATED THIS AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 4. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSE SSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). SHE HAS APPLIED FOR P ERMISSION TO LEAD ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WAS ACCEPTED. THE LD.CIT (A) HAS CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. COPY OF THE REMAND REPO RT HAS BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK ON PAGE NO.8 TO 12. THE LD.CIT(A) H AS REPRODUCED RELEVANT PART OF THE REMAND REPORT ON PAGE NO.10 OF THE IMPU GNED ORDER. A PERUSAL OF REMAND REPORT WOULD INDICATE THAT SURVEY NO.1977/1, SURVEY NO.1972 AND 1972/2 WERE ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURP OSE OF SSNN PROJECT. TOTAL AREA COMPRISED IN THESE SURVEYS WAS: SURVEY NO. AREA IN SQ.MT. 1977/1 789 1972 6818 1971/2 4219 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A TOTAL SUM OF RS.27,5 8,933/- QUA SURVEY NO.1972 AND 1971/2. SIMILARLY, SHE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.2,00,818/- QUA ITA NO.1089/AHD/2013 3 SURVEY NO.1977/1. BIFURCATION OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE REPORT OF THE AO. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS ANNE XED DETAILS IN TABULAR FORM ON PAGE NO.30 OF PAPER BOOK SHOWING AMOUNT TO BE DE POSITED IN THE DISTRICT COURT (AHMEDABAD RURAL). IT REFERS TO LAND ACQUISI TION CASE NO.117/92. AWARD PRONOUNCED BY THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS CASE WAS ON 29.10.2005. IT ATTAINED FINALITY AFTER THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WHICH WAS SHOWN AS AWARDED ON 16.4.2007. IN THIS CHART DETAI LS OF SURVEY NUMBER, LAND REFERENCE NUMBER, FIRST APPEAL NO., AREA AND DETAI LS OF COMPENSATION UNDER DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT PERT AINING TO RELEVANT CLAIMANT, HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ANALY ZED ALL THESE DETAILS, AND THEREFORE, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.19,35,706/-. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I) CIT VS. GHANSHYAM HUF, (2009) 182 TAXMANN 368 (SC) II) CWT VS. SMT. T. GIRIJA AMMAL, 282 ITR 614 III) VIKRAMSINGH VS. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, 224 ITR 551 THE LD.CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT ADDITIONAL COMPENSA TION AND INTEREST THEREON FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF TAXABLE INCOME, AND SINCE THE ISSUE REGARDING DETERMINATION OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AS WELL AS INTEREST WAS FINALIZED BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT ON 16.4 .2007 WHICH FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ACCOUNTING YEAR 2008-09 AND THE AMOUNT S HAVE ALSO BEEN PAID IN THIS VERY ACCOUNTING YEAR, THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONA L COMPENSATION AND INTEREST THEREON IS TAXABLE. 6. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES, W E HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE C ASE OF MOVALIYA BHIKHUBHAI BALABHAI VS. ITO. THIS JUDGEMENT HAS BE EN RENDERED ON ITA NO.1089/AHD/2013 4 31.3.2016 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17944 OF 2015. ACCORDING TO THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THIS JUDGMENT HAS EXPL AINED THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. GHANSHYAM (HUF), (2009) 8 SCC 412. IT IS PERTINENT TO OBSERV E THAT IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL, IT IS IMPERATIVE UPON US TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FINDING OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIG H COURT IN THIS JUDGMENT FROM PARA-7. IT READS AS UNDER: 7. AT THIS JUNCTURE, REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO THE D ECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD V. GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA) WHEREIN, THE COURT HAS E XAMINED THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 AS WEL L AS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45 OF THE I.T. ACT AND THE INTENTION BEH IND INSERTION OF SUB- SECTION (5) OF SECTION 45. THE COURT NOTED THAT SUB -SECTION (5) OF SECTION 45 WAS INSERTED TO PROVIDE FOR TAXATION OF ADDITION AL COMPENSATION IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT INSTEAD OF IN THE YEAR OF TRANS FER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET. THE COURT CONSIDERED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 23( 1), 23(1-A) AND SECTION 23(2) OF THE ACT AS WELL AS SECTION 28 AND SECTION 34 OF THE ACT OF 1894 AND OBSERVED THAT SECTION 23(1-A) WAS INTRO DUCED IN THE 1894 ACT TO MITIGATE THE HARDSHIP CAUSED TO THE OWNER OF THE LAND WHO IS DEPRIVED OF ITS ENJOYMENT BY TAKING POSSESSION FROM HIM AND USING IT FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE, BECAUSE OF THE CONSIDERABLE DEL AY AND OFFERING PAYMENT THEREOF. TO OBVIATE SUCH HARDSHIP, SECTION 23(1-A) WAS INTRODUCED AND THE LEGISLATURE ENVISAGED THAT THE O WNER IS ENTITLED TO 12% PER ANNUM ADDITIONAL AMOUNT ON THE MARKET VALUE FOR A PERIOD COMMENCING ON OR FROM THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF TH E NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF THE 1894 ACT UP TO THE DATE OF THE AWARD OF THE COLLECTOR OR THE DATE OF TAKING POSSESSION OF THE LAND, WHICH EVER IS EARLIER. THE COURT HELD THAT THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT PAYABLE UNDER SECTION 23(1-A) OF THE 1894 ACT IS NEITHER INTEREST NOR SOLATIUM. IT I S AN ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION DESIGNED TO COMPENSATE THE OWNER OF TH E LAND FOR THE RISE IN PRICE DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE LAND ACQUISITIO N PROCEEDINGS. IT IS A MEASURE TO OFFSET THE EFFECT OF INFLATION AND THE C ONTINUOUS RISE IN THE VALUE OF PROPERTIES. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT PAYABLE UNDER SECTION 23(1- A) OF THE ACT IS AN ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION IN RESP ECT TO THE ACQUISITION AND HAS TO BE RECKONED AS PART OF THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND. THE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT THE AWARD OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE 1894 ACT IS DISCRETIONARY. SECTION 28 APPLIES WHEN THE AMOUNT ITA NO.1089/AHD/2013 5 ORIGINALLY AWARDED HAS BEEN PAID OR DEPOSITED AND W HEN THE COURT AWARDS EXCESS AMOUNT. IN SUCH CASES, INTEREST ON TH AT EXCESS ALONE IS PAYABLE. SECTION 28 EMPOWERS THE COURT TO AWARD INT EREST ON THE EXCESS AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION AWARDED BY IT OVER THE AMOUN T AWARDED BY THE COLLECTOR. THE COMPENSATION AWARDED BY THE COURT IN CLUDES THE ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AWARDED UNDER SECTION 23(1- A) AND THE SOLATIUM UNDER SECTION 23(2) OF THE SAID ACT. THIS AWARD OF INTEREST IS NOT MANDATORY BUT IS LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT SECTION 28 IS APPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE EXCESS AMOUNT WHICH IS DETERMINED BY THE COURT AFTER A REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE 1894 ACT. SECTION 28 DOES NOT APPLY TO CASES OF UNDUE DELAY IN MAKING AWARD FOR COMPENSATION. THE COURT OBSERVED T HAT INTEREST IS DIFFERENT FROM COMPENSATION. HOWEVER, INTEREST PAID ON THE EXCESS AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE 1894 ACT DEPENDS UPO N A CLAIM MADE BY A PERSON WHOSE LAND IS ACQUIRED WHEREAS INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 IS FOR THE DELAY IN MAKING PAYMENT. THIS VITAL DIFF ERENCE NEEDS TO BE KEPT IN MIND IN DECIDING THE MATTER. INTEREST UNDER SECTION 28 IS PART OF THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION WHEREAS INTEREST UNDER S ECTION 34 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 PAY MENT OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34. THE COURT, THEREAFTER, SPECIFICALLY CON SIDERED THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER ADDITIONAL AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 23(1- A), SOLATIUM UNDER SECTION 23(2), INTEREST PAID ON EXCESS COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 28 AND INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE 1894 ACT, COUL D BE TREATED AS PART OF COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 45(5) OF THE 1961 ACT AND THE COURT HELD THUS:- 47. THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED BEFORE USWHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE WORDS ENHANCED COMPENSATION/ CONSIDERATION IN SECTION 45(5)(B) OF THE 1961 ACT? WILL IT COVER INTEREST? THESE QUESTIONS ALSO BRING IN THE CONCEPT OF THE YEAR OF TAXABILITY. 48. IT IS TO ANSWER THE ABOVE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAV E ANALYSED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 23, 23(1-A), 23(2), 28 AND 3 4 OF THE 1894 ACT. 49. AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, SECTION 23(1-A) PROVI DES FOR ADDITIONAL AMOUNT. IT TAKES CARE OF THE INCREASE IN THE VALUE AT THE RATE OF 12% PER ANNUM. SIMILARLY, UNDER SECTION 23(2) OF THE 1894 ACT THERE IS A PROVISION FOR SOLATIUM WHICH AL SO REPRESENTS ITA NO.1089/AHD/2013 6 PART OF THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION. SIMILARLY, SECTI ON 28 EMPOWERS THE COURT IN ITS DISCRETION TO AWARD INTER EST ON THE EXCESS AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION OVER AND ABOVE WHAT I S AWARDED BY THE COLLECTOR. IT INCLUDES ADDITIONAL AMOUNT UND ER SECTION 23(1-A) AND SOLATIUM UNDER SECTION 23(2) OF THE SAI D ACT. SECTION 28 OF THE 1894 ACT APPLIES ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE E XCESS AMOUNT DETERMINED BY THE COURTAFTER REFERENCE UNDER SECTIO N 18 OF THE 1894 ACT. IT DEPENDS UPON THE CLAIM, UNLIKE INTERES T UNDER SECTION 34 WHICH DEPENDS ON UNDUE DELAY IN MAKING T HE AWARD. 50. IT IS TRUE THAT INTEREST IS NOT COMPENSATION. IT IS EQUALLY TRUE THAT SECTION 45(5) OF THE 1961 ACT REFERS TO C OMPENSATION. BUT AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, WE HAVE TO GO BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1894 ACT WHICH AWARDS INTEREST BOTH AS AN ACC RETION IN THE VALUE OF THE LANDS ACQUIRED AND INTEREST FOR UNDUE DELAY. INTEREST UNDER SECTION 28 UNLIKE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 I S AN ACCRETION TO THE VALUE, HENCE IT IS A PART OF ENHANCED COMPEN SATION OR CONSIDERATION WHICH IS NOT THE CASE WITH INTEREST U NDER SECTION 34 OF THE 1894 ACT. SO ALSO ADDITIONAL AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 23(1-A) AND SOLATIUM UNDER SECTION 23(2) OF THE 196 1 ACT FORMS PART OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 45(5)(B ) OF THE 1961 ACT. THUS, THE COURT HAS HELD THAT INTEREST UNDER SECTIO N 28 OF THE ACT OF 1894 IS AN ACCRETION TO COMPENSATION AND FORMS PART OF THE COMPENSATION AND, THEREFORE, EXIGIBLE TO TAX UNDER SECTION 45(5) OF THE ACT. SUCH DECISION WAS, THEREFORE, RENDERED IN FAVO UR OF THE REVENUE. 8. THE ABOVE REFERRED DECISION IN THE CASE OF GHANS HYAM (HUF) CAME TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT V. GOVINDBHAI MAMAIYA, (2014) 16 SCC 449, WHEREIN THE COURT AFTER REFERRING TO THE ABOVE DECI SION IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. V. GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA) HELD THAT IT IS C LEAR THAT WHEREAS INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE ACT OF 1894 IS NOT TREATED AS A PART OF INCOME SUBJECT TO TAX, THE INTEREST EARNED UNDER SE CTION 28, WHICH IS ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION, IS TREATED AS AN ACCRETION T O THE VALUE AND, THEREFORE, PART OF THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION OR CON SIDERATION MAKING IT EXIGIBLE TO TAX UNDER SECTION 45(5) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT 9. THUS, THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD V. GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE INTEREST ITA NO.1089/AHD/2013 7 UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE ACT OF 1894 UNLIKE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 IS AN ACCRETION TO THE VALUE AND HENCE, IT IS A PART O F THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION OR CONSIDERATION WHICH IS NOT THE CASE WITH INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE 1894 ACT. THEREFORE, INTERE ST UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE ACT OF 1894 WOULD FORM PART OF THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND WOULD BE EXIGIBLE TO CAPITAL GAINS UNDER SECTION 45 (5) OF THE I.T. ACT. IN OTHER WORDS, IN CASE OF A TRANSACTION WHICH IS OTHE RWISE EXIGIBLE TO CAPITAL GAINS TAX UNDER SECTION 45 OF THE I.T. ACT, THE INTEREST RECEIVED UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE ACT OF 1894 BEING AN ACCRET ION TO THE VALUE, WOULD FORM PART OF THE COMPENSATION AND WOULD BE EX IGIBLE TO TAX UNDER SECTION 45(5) OF THE I.T. ACT, WHEREAS THE IN TEREST RECEIVED UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE ACT OF 1894 WOULD BE INTEREST W ITHIN THE MEANING OF SUCH EXPRESSION AS ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 145A OF THE I.T. ACT AND WOULD BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES UNDE R SECTION 56 OF THE I.T. ACT. 7. HONBLE COURT IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS HAS EXPLAI NED THE NATURE OF COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY LAND OWNER UNDER SECTION 2 3(1-A) AND SECTION 23(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894. THE HONB LE COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT ADDITIONAL AMOUNT AWARDED UNDER SECTION 23(1-A ) AT THE RATE OF 12% PER ANNUM ON THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND FOR A PERIOD COMMENCING ON OR FROM THE DATE OF PUBLISHING OF NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTIO N 4(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT UPTO TO THE DATE OF AWARD OF THE CO LLECTOR OR FROM TAKING THE POSSESSION OF LAND WHICHEVER IS EARLIER, IS NOT AN INTEREST, WHICH IS TAXABLE. IT IS EQUIVALENT TO THE COST OF LAND OR EQUIVALENT TO COMPENSATION AWARDED TO AN AGRICULTURIST WHICH IS NOT TAXABLE. SIMILARLY, SEC TION 23(2) TALKS OF SOLATIUM WHICH ALSO DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF TAXABL E INCOME. HONBLE COURT THEREAFTER EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF INTEREST UNDER S ECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT IS BEING GRANTED TO A CLAIMANT. TH IS SECTION EMPOWERS THE COURT TO AWARD INTEREST ON THE EXCESS AMOUNT OF COM PENSATION AWARDED BY IT OVER THE AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE COLLECTOR. THUS, TH IS INTEREST IS ALSO NOT THE INTEREST AS SUCH WHICH CAN BE TAXABLE. IT CAN BE E XPLAINED IN SIMPLE WAY. ITA NO.1089/AHD/2013 8 UNDER THE SCHEME OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, FIRST STE P REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN BY THE LAND ACQUISITION CO9LLECTOR FOR ACQUIRING THE L AND IS TO NOTIFY THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF LAND, UNDER SECTION 4 OF TH E LAND ACQUISITION ACT. THEREAFTER, OBJECTIONS OF THE LAND OWNER ARE TO BE INVITED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AND THE LAND ACQUISITION C OLLECTOR WAS SUPPOSED TO DISPOSE OF ALL THESE OBJECTIONS UNDER SECTION 5(2) OF THE ACT. UNDER SECTION 6, THE LD.LAND COLLECTOR WOULD FINALISE ACQUISITION OF LAND. HE WILL ISSUE A NOTIFICATION. UNDER SECTION 9 HE WILL PRONOUNCE AN AWARD GIVING COMPENSATION TO THE LAND OWNERS. IF THE LAND OWNER S WERE NOT SATISFIED WITH THE AWARD PRONOUNCED BY THE LD.LAND ACQUISITION COL LECTOR, THEN UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE SAID ACT THEY CAN REQUEST THE LAN D ACQUISITION COLLECTOR TO SEND A REFERENCE TO THE CIVIL COURT FOR DETERMINATI ON OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THEIR LAND. THE COURT WILL DECIDE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AFTER CONDUCTING AN INQUIRY AND IN THIS SCHEME, IF THE CO URT FEELS THAT INTEREST IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN ON THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION A WARDED BY IT OVER THE COMPENSATION AWARDED BY THE COLLECTOR, THEN UNDER S ECTION 28, THE COURT WILL GIVE INTEREST TO THE CLAIMANTS. ACCORDING TO THE H ONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT THE INTEREST AWARDED UNDER SECTION 28 DOES NOT APPL Y TO THE CASE OF UNDUE DELAY IN MAKING AWARD FOR COMPENSATION. IT IS THE PART OF THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION. IF THE AUTHORITIES FAILED TO DEPOSIT THE AWARDED COMPENSATION BY THE COURT, AN INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 IS BEING GIVEN THAT WILL BE TAXABLE. ON AN ANALYSIS OF THE CHART GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE A T PAGE NO.30 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WE FIND THAT NEITHER THE LD.CIT(A) NOR THE LD .AO HAVE MADE OUT A CASE THAT INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARDED TO HER UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO CONSTRUE THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHY AM HUF(SUPRA) AND HAS ERRONEOUSLY OBSERVED THAT ADDITIONAL AMOUNT RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEE ON ITA NO.1089/AHD/2013 9 ACQUISITION OF HER LAND CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 23(1-A) IS ALSO TREATED AT PAR WITH THE INTEREST. ON AN ANALYSIS OF THE CHART ON PAGE NO.30 WOULD INDICATE THAT AWARD WAS GIVEN ON 16.4.2007 AND THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN CALCULATED UPTO 30.11.2007. THUS, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD WHICH WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WA S IN RESPECT OF INTEREST AWARDED UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION AC T. THEREFORE, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A). 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 21 ST NOVEMBER, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( MANISH BORAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 21/11/2016