Ramanjit Singh, Ambala V. ITO, W-3, Ambala

ITA 243/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3691 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M P DWIVEDI
• Assessee Lawyers: ANSHUL GOYAL
• Section: 143(3); 292BB; 143(2); 28; 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, SMC, CHANDIGARH , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 243/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SHRI RAMANJIT SINGH, VILLAGE SHAHPUR, DISTT. AMBALA PIN 133004 VS. THE ITO, WARD-3, AMBALA ./PAN NO. DQUPS1535R / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT ! /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANSHUL GOYAL ' ! / REVENUE BY : SH. M.P.DWIVEDI, JCIT # $ % /DATE OF HEARING : 06.11.2019 &'() % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.11.2019 / ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.12.2018 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS)-4, LUDHIANA [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) U/S 250(6) DATED 24.12.2018 IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN THE DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT AND UPHOLDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS AMOUNTING TO RS. 40,69,731/-. ITA NO. 243-CHD-2019- SHRI RAMANJIT SINGH, AMBALA 2 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED INTEREST ON ENHANCE D COMPENSATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND U/S 34 INSTEAD OF SECTION 28 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ARBITRARILY CONVERSION OF LIMITED SCRUTINY TO COMPLETE SCRUTINY WITHOUT FOLLOWING CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 20/2015 DATED 29.12.2015 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NOT INITIATING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER LIMITED SCRUTINY AT ANY STAGE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND SERVING THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 ON DATED 10.03.2016 & 15.03.2016 FOR COMPLETE SCRUTINY UPON THE APPELLANT BEYOND THE TIME PRESCRIBED FOR WHICH OBJECTIONS U/S 292BB HAS BEEN FILED. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS LOSS AMOUNTING TO RS. 37,65,821/- ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATES AND SURMISES WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND WITHOUT BRINGING ANY TANGIBLE EVIDENCE ON RECORD AGAINST THE APPELLANT. 6. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) INSTEAD OF SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 7. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, ALTER, VARY, MODIFY OR OTHERWISE AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY DISPOSED OF. 8. FOR THESE AND OTHER REASONS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR RELIEF. 3. GROUND NOS. 1, 7 & 8 : THESE GROUNDS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND, HENCE, DO NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFICATION ADJUDICATIO N. ITA NO. 243-CHD-2019- SHRI RAMANJIT SINGH, AMBALA 3 4. GROUND NOS. 4 & 5 : AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE INSTRUCTIONS OF HIS C LIENT, GROUND NOS. 4 & 5 ARE NOT PRESSED. HE HAS ALSO APPENDED A NOTE TO THIS EFFECT IN RESPECT OF GROUND NOS. 4 & 5. HENCE, THESE GROUNDS ARE DISM ISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 5. GROUND NO. 6 : A PERUSAL OF THE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL REVEAL TH AT SOLE ISSUE LEFT FOR ADJUDICATION IS CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON COMPENSATION RECEIVED ON COMPULSORI LY ACQUISITION OF LAND UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1984. THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT THE SAID INTEREST RECEIVED U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 IS INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDINGS ON THIS CONTENTION OF TH E ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, HAS HELD THAT THE SAID INTEREST RE CEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS INTEREST ON COMPENSATION WHICH FALLS U/S 34 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, HENCE, WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAXATION. HOWEVER, TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PR ODUCED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW THAT THE SAID INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS U/S 28 OF THE L AND ACQUISITION ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID INTEREST IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS THE SAME HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT TO BE THE PART OF COMPENSATION RECEIVED ON LA ND ACQUISITION. HE, IN THIS RESPECT HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME ITA NO. 243-CHD-2019- SHRI RAMANJIT SINGH, AMBALA 4 COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V GHANSHYAM 'HUF' 315 I TR 1 (SC), WHEREIN, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE INTEREST PAID O N THE EXCESS AMOUNT U/S 28 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 IS PART OF ENHANC ED VALUE OF THE LAND AND AS SUCH THE SAME IS NOT TAXABLE AS INTEREST INC OME U/S 34 OF THE SAID ACT. RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON THE LATEST DECISIO N OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHET RAM (HUF) DATED 12.9.2017 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.13053/2017, WHEREIN, A LSO THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS AGAIN REITERATED THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA), WHICH WE FIND HAS BEEN FURTHER REITERATED IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA VS. HARI S INGH & OTHERS IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1504 OF 2017 DATED 15.9.2017, AS U NDER: (2) WHILE DETERMINING AS TO WHETHER THE COMPENSATION PAID WAS FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER(S) WILL KEEP IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION AC T AND THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THIS COURT IN 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD V. GHANSHYAM (HUF)' [2009 (8) SCC 412] IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE INTEREST GIVEN UNDER THE SAID PROVISION AMOUNTS TO COMPENSATION OR NOT. 6. SINCE THE FACT AND FACTUAL ISSUE IS AS TO WHETHE R THE INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS U/S 28 OF THE LAND AC QUISITION ACT OR U/S 34 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT HAS NOT BEEN LOOKED INTO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HENCE, AT THE REQUEST OF BOTH TH E LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES, THIS ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE FACTS AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION AS MENTIONED ABOVE. ITA NO. 243-CHD-2019- SHRI RAMANJIT SINGH, AMBALA 5 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATE D AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER DICTATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IMM EDIATELY ON COMPLETION OF HEARING. SD/- ( / SANJAY GARG) / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 06.11.2019 .. '+ ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. # / / CIT 4. # / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , % 2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7$ / GUARD FILE '+ # / BY ORDER, 8 ' / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR