Shri Sham Lal, Panchkula V. ITO, Panchkula

ITA 364/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6409 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 10-05-2018
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N D GUPTASR DR
• Keywords: Agreed addition
• Section: 45(5); 6; 56; 28

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH , ! '# $ % & '# , () BEFORE: SH. SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 364/CHD/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI SHAM LAL, VILLAGE CHOWKI, PANCHKULA. THE ITO, WARD 3, PANCHKULA. ./ PAN NO: AFQPL5667R / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ./ ITA NO. 365/CHD/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI JAGIR SINGH, VILLAGE CHOWKI, PANCHKULA. THE ITO, WARD 3, PANCHKULA. ./ PAN NO: ATLPS4294C / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ./ ITA NO. 366/CHD/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI TARA CHAND, VILLAGE CHOWKI, PANCHKULA. THE ITO, WARD 3, PANCHKULA. ./ PAN NO: ANSPC6837E / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ./ ITA NO. 367/CHD/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI DHARAM PAL, VILLAGE CHOWKI, PANCHKULA. THE ITO, WARD 3, PANCHKULA. ./ PAN NO: BFZPP8423F / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SACHIN JAIN # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SHRI N.D.GUPTA, SR.DR $ % ! &/ DATE OF HEARING : 20.12.2018 '()* ! &/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.01.2019 ITA NOS. 364 TO367/CHD/2016 PAGE 2 OF 7 (*/ ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX(APPEALS)-2, GURGAON [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS CI T(A) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011.12. WHILE THE CIT(A) PASSED A SEPARATE ORDER DATED 16.02.2016 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA 366/CHD/2016, THE REST OF THE ASSESSEE'S APPEALS WERE DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF COMMON ORDER OF THE CIT(A), GURGAON DATED 10.02.201 6. 2. AT THE OUTSET ITSELF, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT TH E ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS WAS COMMON AND THEREFORE, THEY A RE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON CONSOLIDATED ORDE R. WE SHALL BE DEALING WITH THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE' S APPEAL IN ITA 364/CHD/2016 AND THE DECISION RENDERED THEREIN WILL APPLY MUTATIS-MUTANDIS TO THE REST OF THE APPEALS ALSO. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT WAS P OINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS RELATED TO TH E TAXABILITY OF INTEREST RECEIVED AS PART OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894. IT WAS POINTED OUT THA T THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA 364/CHD /2016 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ENHANCED COMPENSATION AMO UNTING TO RS. 9,64,57,703/- WHICH COMPRISED OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,77,53,426/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RETURNED THE SA ME TO TAXATION. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE INTEREST WAS EXEMPT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF G HANSHYAM DASS, HUF 315 ITR 1, BUT AT THE SAME TIME SUBMITTED THAT BEING A LAW ITA NOS. 364 TO367/CHD/2016 PAGE 3 OF 7 BINDING CITIZEN, HE HAD NO OBJECTION FOR TAXATION O F THE INTEREST INCOME AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION AVAILABLE ON THE AM ENDED PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AND ACCORDINGLY, OFFERED 50% OF THE INTE REST INCOME OUT OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION TO BE ADDED TO HIS INCOME SUB JECT TO NO PENALTY. THE AO ACCORDINGLY ADDED 50% OF THE INTER EST RECEIVED I.E. RS. 2,38,76,713/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE. 4. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WH O DISMISSED THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL STATING THAT IT WAS AN AGREED ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION AND NO APPEAL LA Y AGAINST SUCH AGREED ADDITIONS. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECIS ION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BANTA SING H KARTAR SINGH 125 ITR 239 (P&H) IN THIS REGARD. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE SAME, THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON MERI T RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF MANJIT SINGH, HUF KARTA, MANJIT SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA & OTHER S CWP NO. 15506 OF 2013 DATED 14.01.2014. THE CIT(A) ALSO REL IED ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF SUNDER LAL & ANOTHER VS UNION OF INDIA IN CWP 2014 OF 2015 POINT ING OUT THEREFROM THAT AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF TH E APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM, HUF, IT WAS HELD BY THE JURI SDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN BOTH THE AFORESAID DECISIONS THAT INTEREST RECEIVED U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT WAS TAXABLE AS INTEREST IN COME UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. THE LD. CIT(A) S TATED THAT THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF SUNDER LAL & ANOTHER DATED 21.09.2015 WAS THE LATEST DECISION ON THIS ISSUE AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM, HUF, THE SAID DECISION WOULD APPLY TO TH E ISSUE AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES. ITA NOS. 364 TO367/CHD/2016 PAGE 4 OF 7 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP I N APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT THE LD. A. 0. IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMIN G THAT THE INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION ON COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,34,27,070/- IS LIABLE TO TAX UND ER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' AND NOT A PART OF ENHANCED COMP ENSATION BEING EXEMPT. 2. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL, T HE APPELLANT DISPUTES THE QUANTUM OF ADDITION. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR ANY ADDITION , DELETION OR AMENDMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE SAME. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, AT THE O UTSET IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERE D BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, I N GROUP OF CASES IN ITA 539/CHD/2016 AND OTHERS DATED 04.10.20 18 WHEREIN THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E. DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 9.1, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ITAT NOTED THAT THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAD UPHELD THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM, HUF, SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F MANJIT SINGH, HUF, IN THEIR DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS CHET RAM, HUF DATED 12.09.2017 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13053/2017 AND IN TH E CASE OF UNION OF INDIA VS HARI SINGH & ORS. IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1 504 OF 2017 DATED 15.09.2017. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THESE DECISION S RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT REITERATING THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN IN GHANSHYAM, HUF WERE SUBSEQUENT EVEN TO THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUNDER LAL & ORS. (SUPRA) AND THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COU RT WOULD PREVAIL. 7. THE LD. DR, THOUGH CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE HAD B EEN DEALT WITH BY THE ITAT IN ITA 539/CHD/2016 AND OTHERS, RE LIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ITA NOS. 364 TO367/CHD/2016 PAGE 5 OF 7 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, ADMITTEDLY THE ISSUE OF TH E NATURE OF INTEREST RECEIVED U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION AC T, 1894 HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THEIR RECENT DECISION IN ITA 539/CHD/2016 AS ABOVE AFTER CONSIDE RING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF MANJIT SINGH (SUPRA) AND HAVING HELD THAT THE DECISION OF THE AP EX COURT IN GHANSHYAM, HUF (SUPRA) WOULD PREVAIL AND THE INTERE ST RECEIVED U/S 28 WOULD THEREFORE PARTAKE CHARACTER OF COMPENS ATION AS LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN THE SAID DECISION AND NOT INTEREST TAXABLE AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJIT SINGTH (SUPRA) AND SUNDER LAL (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS REITERATED THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN IN GHANSHYAM, HUF IN THE CASE OF CHET RAM (SUP RA) AND HARI SINGH (SUPRA), WE FIND IS CORRECT SINCE BOTH THE DE CISIONS OF THE APEX COURT HAVE BEEN RENDERED IN 2017 WHILE THE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT DECISIONS HAVE BEEN RENDERED IN 2015. THE RE LEVANT FINDINGS OF THE ITAT ARE AT PARA 7 TO 9.1 OF THE ORDER WHICH IS AS UNDER : 7. THE CORE GROUND INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS R EGARDING THE TAXABILITY OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION U/S 28 OF THE LAN D ACQUISITION ACT, 1894. NOW, THERE ARE TWO QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, FIRST ISSUE IS REGARDING THE YEAR OF TAXABILITY OF THE INTEREST INCOME WHETHER IT HAS TO TAXED IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA) OR IS TO BE TAXED ON THE BASIS OF APPORTION MENT FOR EACH YEAR FROM THE DATE OF ACQUISITION OF LANDS TILL THE RECEIPT OF THE COMPEN SATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMA BAI ( SUPRA); THE SECOND ISSUE INVOLVED IS AS TO WHETHER THE INTEREST AWARDED U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION IS TO BE TREATED AS PART OF THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND WILL NOT BE TAXABLE SEPARATELY AS INTEREST INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES? 8. WE FIND THAT BOTH THESE ISSUES ARE COVERED BY TH E AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA ) HOLDING THE SAME TO BE IN THE NATURE OF COMPENSATION ITSELF. THE COURT ALSO D EALT WITH THE OTHER ASPECT NAMELY, THE YEAR OF TAX AND ANSWERED THIS QUESTION BY HOLDI NG THAT IT HAS TO BE TESTED ON RECEIPT BASIS, WHICH MEANS IT WOULD BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS RECEIVED. THE SAID FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA) HAVE BEEN REITERATED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOVINDBHA I MAMAIYA (SUPRA) OBSERVING AS UNDER: ITA NOS. 364 TO367/CHD/2016 PAGE 6 OF 7 IN SO FAR AS THE SECOND QUESTION IS CONCERNED, THA T IS ALSO COVERED BY ANOTHER JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDA BAD VS. GHANSHYAM (HUF) REPORTED IN (2009) 8 SCC 412, 6 ALBEIT, IN FAVOUR O F THE REVENUE. IN THAT CASE, THE COURT DREW DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE INTEREST EARNED UNDE R SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AND THE INTEREST WHICH IS UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE SAID ACT. THE COURT CLARIFIED THAT WHEREAS COMPENSATION GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE OF THE L AND ACQUIRED WOULD BE 'INCOME', THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION/CONSIDERATION BECOMES INCOME BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 45(5)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER IT WIL L COVER INTEREST AND IF SO, WHAT WOULD BE THE YEAR OF TAXABILITY. THE POSITION IN TH IS RESPECT IS EXPLAINED IN PARAS 49 AND 50 OF THE JUDGMENT WHICH MAKE THE FOLLOWING READING : 49. AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, SECTION 23(1-A) PROV IDES 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 A CT THERE IS A PROVISION FOR SOLATIUM WHICH ALSO REPRESENTS PART OF THE ENHA NCED COMPENSATION. SIMILARLY, SECTION 28 EMPOWERS THE COURT IN ITS DIS CRETION TO AWARD INTEREST ON THE EXCESS AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION OVER AND ABOVE WHAT IS AWARDED BY THE COLLECTOR. IT INCLUDES ADDITIONAL AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 23(1-A) AND SOLATIUM UNDER SECTION 23(2) OF THE SAID ACT. SECTI ON 28 OF THE 1894 ACT APPLIES ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE EXCESS AMOUNT DETERM INED BY THE COURT AFTER REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE 1894 ACT. IT DEPE NDS UPON THE CLAIM, UNLIKE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 WHICH DEPENDS ON U NDUE DELAY IN MAKING THE AWARD. 50. IT IS TRUE THAT INTEREST IS NOT COMPENSATION. IT IS EQUALLY TRUE THAT SECTION 45(5) OF THE 1961 ACT REFERS TO COMPENSATIO N. BUT AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, WE HAVE TO GO BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1894 ACT WHICH AWARDS INTEREST BOTH AS AN ACCRETION IN THE VALUE OF THE LANDS ACQUIRED AND INTEREST FOR UNDUE DELAY. INTEREST UNDER SECTIO N 28 UNLIKE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 IS AN ACCRETION TO THE VALUE, HENC E IT IS A PART OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION OR CONSIDERATION WHICH IS NOT THE CASE WITH INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE 1894 ACT. SO ALSO ADDITIONAL AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 23 (1-A) AND SOLATIUM UNDER SECTION 23(2) O F THE 1961 ACT FORMS PART OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 45(5)(B ) OF THE 1961 ACT. 8. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT WHEREAS INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 IS NOT TREATED AS A PART OF INCOME SUBJECT TO TAX, THE INTEREST EARNED UNDER SECTION 28, WHICH IS ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION, IS TREATED AS A ACCRETION TO THE VALUE AND THEREFORE, PART OF THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION OR CONSIDERATION MAKING IT EX IGIBLE TO TAX. AFTER HOLDING THAT INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 28 OF 1894 ACT IS TAXABLE, THE COURT DEALT WITH THE OTHER ASPECT NAMELY, THE YEAR OF TAX AND ANSWERED THIS QUESTION BY HOLDING THAT IT HAS TO BE TESTED ON RECEIPT BASIS, WHICH MEANS IT WOULD BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS RECEIVED. IT WOULD MEAN THAT CO NVERSE POSITION I.E. SPREAD OVER OF THIS INTEREST ON ACCRUAL BASIS IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. 9. THE LD. COUNSELS FOR ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER BRO UGHT OUR ATTENTION THE LATEST DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. CHET RAM (HUF) DATED 12.9.2017 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.13053/2017 WHEREIN ALS O THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS AGAIN REITERATED THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN IN T HE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA), WHICH WE FIND HAS BEEN FURTHER REITERATED IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA VS. HARI SINGH & OTHERS IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1504 OF 201 7 DATED 15.9.2017, AS UNDER: (2) WHILE DETERMINING AS TO WHETHER THE COMPENSATI ON 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, FARID ABAD V. GHANSHYAM (HUF)' [2009 (8) SCC 412] IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHE THER THE INTEREST GIVEN UNDER THE SAID PROVISION AMOUNTS TO COMPENSATION OR NOT. 9.1 THE SAID DECISION AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT SUBSEQ UENT TO THE DECISION PASSED BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F MANJEET SINGH(HUF) (SUPRA) WHICH HAD DEALT WITH THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE A PEX COURT IN GHANSHYAM, HUF (SUPRA). THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE PROPOS ITION LAID DOWN IN GHANSHYAM, HUF (SUPRA) REMAINS AND WHICH HAVING BEEN LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND AND HAS TO BE FOLLOWED BY ALL L OWER AUTHORITIES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE AS SESSEE DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR ON ITA NOS. 364 TO367/CHD/2016 PAGE 7 OF 7 THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF ITS LAND U/S 28 OF TH E LAND ACQUISITION ACT, IS IN THE NATURE OF COMPENSATION AND NOT INTEREST WHICH IS TA XABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES U/S 56 OF THE ACT AS HELD BY THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW. THE COMPENSATION BEING EXEMPT U/S 10(37) OF THE ACT IS NOT DISPUTED. IN VIEW OF THE SAME THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) UPHOLDING THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION IS, NOT SUSTAINAB LE. THE RATIO OF THE ORDER LAID DOWN VIDE ORDER DT. 09/07/2018 IN A GROUP OF CASES IN ITA NO. 1413 TO 1437/CHD/2016 WOULD APPLY MUTATIS-MUTANDIS TO THE C ORE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE HOLD THAT THE PROPOSITIO N LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT VIS--VIS THE TAXABILITY OF INTEREST RECEIVED U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 WOULD PREV AIL WHICH IS THE LAW OF THE LAND AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID INTEREST RECEIVED IS TO BE TREATED AS BEING IN THE NATURE OF COMPENSATION NOT LIABLE TO TAX. THE ACT OF THE REVENUE IN TREATING IT AS INTEREST TAXAB LE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THEREBY TAXING 50% OF IT IS THER EFORE, SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 10. IT WAS COMMON GROUND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE REST OF THE APPEALS WAS IDENTICAL TO THAT IN ITA NO. 364/CH D/2016. OUR DECISION RENDERED THEREIN WILL APPLY MUTATIS-MUTAND IS TO THE SAID APPEALS ALSO FOLLOWING WHICH WE ALLOW THE REST OF T HE APPEALS ALSO. 11. IN EFFECT, ALL THE APPEALS STAND ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.01.2018. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( $ % & '# ) (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUP TA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER () / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (+ ! ,- .- / 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