Lal Singh S/o Sh. Prem Singh, V. ACIT,

ITA 1624/DEL/2003

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8220 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 01-02-2010
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2003
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H K LAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 45(5); 250; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1624/DEL/2003 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000 LAL SINGH, S/O SHRI DHAN SINGH, C/O SHRI Y.P. SINGH RANA, ADVOCATE, 205-206 AAP-KA-BAZAR, GURGAON VS. ACIT, GURGAON CIRCLE, JACUMPURA, GURGAON. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI H.K. LAL, SR. DR ORDER PER : I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS DI RECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) DATED 19 TH FEBRUARY, 2003 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. GRO UNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT APPEAL ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) APPEAL FARIDAB AD IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE. 2. THAT LD. CIT (A) FARIDABAD ERROR IN LAW AND ALSO ON FACTS BY UPHOLDING THE DECISIONS OF THE LD. ACIT REGARDIN G CHARGING OF INCOME TAX & INTEREST IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 199 9-2000 WHILE THE SAID INTEREST INCOME DID NOT ATTAIN FINAL ITY AND WHICH IS STILL IN JEOPARDY AS PER THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT. CASE LAW RELIED IN THIS RESPECT ARE AS UNDER :- 161 ITR 524 (SC) 247 ITR 457 (GUJRAT) 14 IT REPORTER 143 DELHI HIGH COURT ITA NO.1624/DEL/2003 2 ITAT (DELHI) BENCH DELHI. 3. THAT LD. CIT (A), FARIDABAD ERROR IN LAW IN TAKI NG SHELTER OF THE DECISIONS OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COU RT 250 ITR 759 DESPITE THE FACT THAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAD ALREADY DECIDED THE SAID ISSUE IN THE CASE OF CIT V /S HINDUSTAN HOUSING & LAND DEVELOPMENT TRUST 161 ITR 524- 527. THAT THE ENHANCED COMPENSATIONS WILL ATTAIN F INALITY IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE APEX COURT WOULD FINALLY DECI DE THE COMPENSATION ACCORDINGLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATIO N. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IS LIA BLE TO BE SET ASIDE ON OTHER GROUNDS TOO WHICH THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO TAKE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL . 5. THAT APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND, MODIFY, ALT ER OR SUBSTITUTE ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS MENTIONED THER EIN ABOVE. 2. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE, HOWE VER, ON THE FIXED DATE OF HEARING NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AFT ER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON OUR RECORD. THE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACQUIRED BY ISSUING NOTIFICATION ON 24 TH MARCH, 1993. FEELING DISSATISFIED WITH THE QUANTU M OF COMPENSATION AWARDED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL IN THE COURT OF ADJ, GURGAON, WHO ENHANCED THE COMPENSATION @ RS.265/- PER SQ. YA RD. BOTH THE PARTIES I.E., STATE OF HARYANA AND THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS AGA INST THE SAID ORDER. HONBLE HIGH COURT REDUCED THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION FROM R S.265 PER SQ. YARD TO RS.212 PER SQ. YARD. SUCH ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIG H COURT HAS BEEN UPHELD BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT ON 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2003. THE ASSESSEE SHOWN THE TOTAL INTEREST INCOME OF RS.31,83,200/- IN ASSESSME NT YEAR 1999-2000 AND TAX WAS ALSO PAID. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS THE AMOUNT OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION WAS REDUCED BY THE ORDER OF HONBLE SU PREME COURT, ACCORDINGLY PROPORTIONATE RELIEF OUT OF INTEREST INCOME SHOULD BE GIVEN WHICH HAS BEEN COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT A SUM OF RS.7,25,798/- AND IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INTEREST INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ASSESSED AT RS.24,57,402/- IN PLACE OF RETURNED INCOME SHOWN BY HIM AT RS.31,83,200/-. THE ITA NO.1624/DEL/2003 3 GRIEVANCE PUT BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WAS THAT THE S AID AMOUNT OF RS.7,25,798/- SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM THE INTEREST INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM THAT A SUM OF RS.31,83,200/- A S INTEREST WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DELAY IN RELEASE OF COMPENSATI ON AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INTEREST INC OME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,25,798/- WAS REQUIRED TO BE REDUCED WHICH RELATES TO REDUCTION OF COMPENSATION BY THE ORDER OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT SUCH CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PREFER RED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AGAINST THE REDUCTION OF COM PENSATION AND ALSO THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.7,25,798/- WAS NOT ACTUALLY PAID OR REFUNDED TO THE GOVERNMENT. BEFORE THE CIT (A) IT WAS CONTENDED TH AT SUCH ACTION OF AO WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. LD. CIT (A) HAS CO NFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED, HENCE, IN APPEAL. 4. IN THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BEFORE US, WRITTEN SU BMISSIONS HAVE BEEN FILED ACCORDING TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING AD JUSTMENT OF ABOVE INTEREST OUT OF INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS THE CO NTENTION THAT THE AO SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO FRAME ASSESSMENT ON REDUCED INTEREST INCOME OF RS.24,57,402/-. THE SAID SUBMISSION IS FILED ALONG WITH PAPER BOOK FILED ON 17 TH FEBRUARY, 2006 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF AO AND CIT (A). HE SUBMITTED THAT ACCORDING TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GHANSHAM HUF 315 ITR 1 (SC), INTEREST ON EX CESS COMPENSATION U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT FORMED PART OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION U/S 45(5)(B), THEREFORE, ARE TAXABLE U/S 45(5) IN THE YEAR OF REC EIPT. HE, THUS, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO PAY TAX ON THE ENTIRE IN TEREST INCOME. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE BENEFIT OF DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COU RT WAS NEITHER AVAILABLE WITH THE AO NOR WITH THE CIT (A) AND THE SUBMISSION FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PRIOR TO ITA NO.1624/DEL/2003 4 THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT. HE, THEREFO RE, CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) SHOULD BE UPHELD. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON OUR RECORD. THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT RELIED UPON BY LD. DR IS AFTER THE DATE OF DECISION OF AO AND CIT (A) AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO PRIOR TO THE R ENDERING OF THE DECISION. IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION T HAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO WIT H A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DE CISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GHANSHAM HUF (SUPRA). WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. AS WE HAVE RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO, WE DO NOT EXPRESS ANY OPINION ON MERITS WHICH WILL BE RE-ADJUDICATED BY T HE AO AS PER DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY US. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. . THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05.02.20 10. SD/- SD/- [G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA] [I.P. BANSAL] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 05.02.2010. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES