ITO, Rewari V. Sh. Manish Yadav, Rewari

ITA 3836/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5784 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KAPIL GEOL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Revision of order; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 45(5); 56(2); 56; 263; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI E BEN CH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, ITA NO. 3836/DEL/2016 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13] ITO, WARD NO.2, REWARI, MODEL TOWN, REWARI (HARYANA), HARYANA - 123401 SH. MANISH YADAV, S/O-SH. JAI PRAKASH, H. NO.499, MEHRWARA, REWARI, HARYANA PAN - AGWPY4077F APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY MS. RINKU SINGH, ASSESSEE BY SHRI KAPIL GEOL, DATE OF HEARING 08 /08 /2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09 /08 /2019 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), DATED 19/04/2016. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOL LOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF R S. 96,29,902/- MADE ON THE GROUND OF DISALLOWANCE OF 50% INTEREST ON COMPENSATION/ENHANCED COMPENSATION U/S 56 (2)(VIII) OF THE I.T. ACT. CIT(A) HAS ERRONEOUSLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECIS ION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM(HUF) DELIVER ED ON 16.07.2009 AS CLAUSE (VIII) OF SECTION 56(2) WAS IN SERTED BY FINANCE ACT 2009 W.E.F 01.04.2010 ACCORDING TO WHICH INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON COMPENSATION OR ENHANCE COMPEN SATION REFER TO IN CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 145A SHALL BE CHARGEABLE U NDER HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT. EVEN, TH E JURISDICTIONAL HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJIT SINGH(HUF) VS UOI AND OTHERS IN CWP NO. 15506 OF 20 13 DATED 2 ITA NO.3836/DEL/2016 14.02.2014 HAS REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GHANSHYAM(HUF) AND HELD THAT INT EREST RECEIVED ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION IS A REVENUE RECEIPT CHARG ED TO INCOME TAX. 2. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE DECISIO N OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS BIR SINGH ITA NO. 209 OF 2004 DECIDED ON 27.10.2010 AND SUNDER LAI AND ANOTH ER VS UOI IN CWP NO. 2014 DECIDED ON 21.09.2015 WHERE IN IT WAS HELD THAT ELEMENT OF INTEREST AWARDED BY THE COURT ON ENHANCE D AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION U/S 28 OF 1894 ACT FALLS FOR TAXATION U/S 56 AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT UNDER CAS H SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTANCY. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. DR ARGUED THAT THE LD. CI T(A) HAS WRONGLY ALLOWED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (HUF) WHICH WAS DELIVERED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT ON 16/07/2009 WHEREAS THE FINANCE ACT, 2009 W.E.F. 01/04/2010 WAS AMENDED AND TO WHICH INC OME BY WAY OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON COMPENSATION OR ENHANCED COMPE NSATION WAS CHARGEABLE UNDER HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. TH E LD. DR ARGUED THAT EVEN HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF MANJEET SINGH (HUF) VS UOI, AFTER CONSIDERING THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (HUF) HAS HE LD THAT INTEREST RECEIVED FROM ENHANCED COMPENSATION IS A REVENUE RE CEIPT CHARGEABLE TO INCOME TAX. THE LD. DR FURTHER ARGUED THAT LD. C IT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE HONBBLE PUNJAB & H ARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS CIT VS BIR SINGH (HUF) IN ITA N O.209 OF 2004, WHEREIN IN WAS HELD THAT THE ELEMENT OF INTEREST ON ENHANCED AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION U/S 28 OF 1894 OF THE ACT FALLS FOR TA XATION U/S 56 AS 3 ITA NO.3836/DEL/2016 INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT UN DER CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTANCY. THE LD. DR FURTHER PLACED HER RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS CHET RA M (HUF), WHERE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE A SSESSEE RECEIVED SOME AMOUNT OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION AS ALSO INTERE ST THEREON UNDER AN INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, IT WAS LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED FOR TAX IN THE YEAR IN WHICH SAID AMOUNT H AS BEEN RECEIVED. 3. THE LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE LAW OF MANJET SINGH (HUF) & CIT VS CHET RAM(HUF) DECIDED B Y HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSID ERED IN VARIOUS CASE DECIDED BY VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL AND IN THIS RESPECT SPECIFIC RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON ORDER OF THE DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF OPINDER SINGH VIRK, WHERE VIDE ORDER DATED 14/03/20 19, HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E LD. AR FURTHER PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON ORDER OF LUCKNOW TRIBUNAL WH ERE UNDER SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES VIDE ORDER DATED 07/03/2018 , THE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMILA RLY, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL OF CHAN DIGARH, IN THE CASE OF SHRI BHARAT BHUSHAN VS PR. CIT IN ITA NO.597/CHD/20 18, WHERE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS INCLUDING THE 4 ITA NO.3836/DEL/2016 CASE LAW OF MANJEET SINGH(HUF), DECIDED THE ISSUE I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUG H THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED INTEREST U/S 28 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1 894. THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GHANSHYAM(HUF) 182 TAXM AN 368 HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF SECTION 28 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 IS PART OF THE COMPENS ATION AND THEREFORE WAS NOT TAXABLE. THE HONBLE DELHI BENCH OF THE T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI OPINDER SINGH VIRK, VIDE ORDER DATED 14/03/201 9 HAS DEALT WITH THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F CHET RAM (HUF) AS WELL AS THE CASE LAWS OF GHANSHYAMDAS AND AFTER ANALYSING THE SAME HAS AGAIN HELD THAT INTEREST RECEIPT ON ENHANCED CO MPENSATION U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT IS IN THE NATURE OF COMPEN SATION. THE FINDING OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL AS REPRODUCED BELOW:- 8. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF THE ARGUMENTS ON EITHER SIDE AND THE DECIS IONS OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT CITED ABOVE. IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (S UPRA), THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD IN UNEQUIVOCAL TERMS THA T THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT U/S 23(1A), SOLATIUM UNDER SECTION 23(2) AND INTEREST ON EXCESS COMPENSATION U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT FORM PART OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION U/S 45(5)(B) AND, THEREFORE, IS SUBJECT TO TAX U/S 45(5) IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT. NO CONTRARY VIEW IS TAKEN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENTS AND AS ON THE DATE, LAW IS FAIRLY SETTLED THAT THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST RECEI VED U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT IS IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL GAIN. I N THE CASE OF HARI SINGH (SUPRA) WHILE DEALING WITH THE SIMILAR QUESTI ON UNDER IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO 5 ITA NO.3836/DEL/2016 EXAMINE THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND TO APPLY THE LAW AS CONTAINED IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT, HONBLE SUPREME COURT SPECIFICA LLY DIRECTS THAT IN CASE THE LEARNED AO FINDS THAT THE COMPENSATION WAS RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE TAX DEPOSITED WITH THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT SHALL BE REFUNDED TO THE ASSESSEE. HONB LESUPREME COURT GAVE THE ABOVE DIRECTION AFTER NOTICING THE D ECISION IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (SUPRA). 9. IN THIS SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES, IT DOES NOT ADMIT OF ANY DOUBT AS TO THE NATURE OF RECEIPT BY WAY OF INTEREST U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE APPLICABILI TY OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT TO SCH AMOUNT. WHEN THE HONBLE SUPREME COU RT SPECIFICALLY DIRECTS IN THE CASE OF HARI SINGH (SUPRA), THE LEAR NED AO SHALL EXAMINE THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THEN APPLY THE LA W AS CONTAINED, CIT(A) HAS NOT STATED THAT SUCH AN AMOUNT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO TAX U/S 45(5) WITHOUT APPLYING THE PROVISIONS UNDER 10(37) OF THE ACT, WHICH EXEMPTS SUCH RECEIPTS FROM BEING TAXED. IT COULD BE NOTED THAT SECTION 45(5) MAKES NO REFERENCE TO THE NATURE OF P ROPERTY THAT IS ACQUIRED BUT IT DEALS WITH THE CATEGORY OF CASES WH ICH FALLS IN THE DESCRIPTION OF CAPITAL ASSETS. HOWEVER, SECTION 1 0(37) EXEMPTS SPECIFICALLY AN INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD C APITAL GAINS ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT ONCE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DIRECTED THE AO IN T HE CASE OF HARI SINGH (SUPRA) THAT AFTER EXAMINING THE FACTS TO APP LY THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT WITH A SPECIFIC REF ERENCE TO THE AGRICULTURAL LAND STATING THAT IN CASE IF IT IS FOU ND THAT THE COMPENSATION WAS RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF THE AGRICUL TURAL LAND, THE TAX DEPOSITED WITH THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT SHALL BE R EFUNDED TO THESE DEPOSITORS. 10. IN THIS MATTER, WHAT WAS ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERN MENT WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SUCH A FACT IS WELL EVIDENT F ROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF . AS A MATTER OF FACT, LEARNED AO, BY GRANTING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(37) OF THE ACT, REFUNDED A SUM OF RS. 1,22,01,723/-. ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THE INTEREST RECEIVED UNDE R SECTION 28 OF THE ACT ASSUMES THE CHARACTER OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND CONSEQUENTLY IT IS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(37) OF T HE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT REFERRED TO ABOVE, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY DOUBT IN OUR MIND AS TO THE LAW IN THI S ASPECT AND WHILE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (SUPRA) AND HARI SIN GH (SUPRA) ABOVE, DIRECT THE LD. AO TO REFUND THE TDS AMOUNT T HAT WAS DEDUCTED ON ACCOUNT OF THE INTEREST RECEIVED UNDER SECTION 2 8 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT ALSO. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, WE ALL OW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. 6 ITA NO.3836/DEL/2016 5. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE CHANDIGARH BEN CH OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 11/01/2019 HAS DEALT WITH THE CASE LAW OF MANJIT SINGH AND RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF HARI SINGH HAS ALLOWED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY CA NCELLING ORDER U/S 263 BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 6. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, ID. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECISIO N PASSED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NA RESH JAIN (SUPRA),WHICH WAS HEAVILY RELIED UPON BY THE ID. PR . CIT IN HIS ORDER FOR STATING THAT THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE A PEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM, HUF STOOD OVERRULED, AND THAT IN TEREST U/S 28 WAS LIABLE TO TAX AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES', T HE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAD CATEGORICALLY REITERATED ITS DECISION REN DERED IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM, HUF IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA ORS . VS HARI SINGH & ORS. IN CA NO. 15041/2017 DATED 15.09.2017. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NARESH JAIN WAS DATED 12.07.2017, WHILE THE APEX COURT HAD REITERATED THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM, HUF SUBSEQUENTLY IN SEPTEMBER,2017 AND THEREFORE, T HE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT WAS THE LAW OF THE LAND FOLLOWING WHICH INTEREST U/S 28 OF THE LAA, 1894,WA S IN THE NATURE OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND NOT IN THE NATURE OF INTE REST AND THEREFORE, HAD BEEN RIGHTLY NOT RETURNED TO TAX BY ASSESSEES. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY ID. PR. C IT, THEREFORE, WAS ERRONEOUS. 7. THE ID. DR ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ID. PR. CIT. 8. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. WE FIND MERIT I N THE CONTENTION OF THE ID. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. UND OUBTEDLY THE LD. PR. CIT HAD HEAVILY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJIT SINGH (SUPRA) AND MORE SPECIFICALLY IN THE CASE OF NARESH JAIN (SUPRA) TO HOLD THAT THE PR OPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM, HU F THAT INTEREST RECEIVED U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION AC T, 1894 WAS PART OF THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION, WAS NOT GOOD LAW. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE ID. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS REITERATED THE AFORESAID PROPOSITION IN T HE CASE OF HARI SINGH (SUPRA) SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECISION PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NARESH JAIN (SUPRA) .WE H AVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF HARI SINGH AND 7 ITA NO.3836/DEL/2016 FIND THAT THE UNION OF INDIA HAD COME BEFORE THE SU PREME COURT AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT IN WRIT PETI TION FILED BY THE ASSESEEES BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE ISSUE BEFORE T HE HIGH COURT WAS THAT THE ASSESSEES HAD RECEIVED ENHANCED COMPEN SATION ON WHICH TAX HAD BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AS PER THE PR OVISION OF SECTION 194LA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTENDE D THAT NO TAX WAS DEDUCTIBLE ON THE SAME AS LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND WITHOUT EXAMINING THESE FACTS, TAXES HAD BEEN DEDUC TED AT SOURCE. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAD DIRECTED REFUND OF THE T AXES TO THE ASSESSEES AND HAD DIRECTED THE LAND ACQUISITION OFF ICER/COLLECTOR TO EXAMINE WHETHER THEIR LANDS WERE AGRICULTURAL OR NOT AND DECIDE WHETHER TAXES WERE LIABLE TO BE DEDUCTED THEREFROM AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE UNION OF INDIA HAD COME IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT STATING THAT IT WAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO WAS C APABLE OF DETERMINING THE NATURE OF LAND AS BEING AGRICULTURA L OR NOT FOR THE PURPOSES OF TAXABILITY UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61. THE SAME WAS AGREED TO BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT AND THEY HA D, THEREFORE, DIRECTED THE AO TO EXAMINE THIS ASPECT AND FURTHER CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY IT IN GHAN SHYAM, HUF(SUPRA) VIS A VIS INTEREST RECEIVED U/S 28 OF TH E LAA, 1894 BE KEPT IN MIND TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE INTEREST RECE IVED AMOUNTS TO COMPENSATION OR NOT. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE H ON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THIS REGARD ARE AS UNDER : WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED ADDI TIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL INSOFAR AS THE CHALLENGE TO THE D IRECTION GIVEN TO THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR TO DETERMINE AS T O WHETHER THE LAND IN QUESTION IS AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT SINCE THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR HAD. ALREADY DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE AND DEPOSITED WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, BETTER COURSE OF ACTION, WHICH IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, IS FOR THE R ESPONDENTS TO APPROACH THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER(S) AND TO RAISE THE ISSUE THAT NO TAX IS PAYABLE ON THE COMPENSATION/EN HANCED COMPENSATION WHICH IS RECEIVED BY THEM AS THEIR LAN D WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND. ONCE SUCH AN ISSUE IS RAISED BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OJFICER(S), IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER(S) TO EXAMINE THE FACTS OF EACH CASE AND THEN APPLY THE L AW AS CONTAINED IN THE INCOME TAX ACT TO DETERMINE THE AF ORESAID QUESTION. INSOFAR AS THESE CASES ARE CONCERNED, WE ALLOW THESE APPEALS BY SETTING ASIDE THE DIRECTIONS CONTAINED I N PARAGRAPH 7 AND SUBSTITUTE THE SAME WITH THE FOLLOWING DIRECT IONS: (I) THE RESPONDENTS SHALL FILE APPROPRIATE RETURNS BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER(S) IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTI ON WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS FROM TODAY IN CASE THEY FEEL T HAT THE COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF LAND BELONGING TO THEM W HICH HAD BEEN ACQUIRED WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND, AND CLAIM REFU ND OF THE TAX WHICH WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND DEPOSITED WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. ON THE FILING OF THESE RETURNS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER(S) SHALL GO INTO THE AFORESAID QUESTION AND WHEREVER IT IS FOUND THAT THE COMPENSATION WAS RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF 8 ITA NO.3836/DEL/2016 AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE TAX DEPOSITED WITH THE INCOM E TAX DEPARTMENT SHALL BE REFUNDED TO THESE RESPONDENTS. (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 ACQUI SITION ACT AND THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THIS COURT IN 'COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX. FARIDABAD V. GHANSHYAM (HUF)' [2009 (8) SCC 41 2] IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE INTEREST GIVEN UNDER THE SAID PROVISION AMOUNTS TO COMPENSATION OR NOT. (3) THE D IRECTION TO REFUND THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE (TDS) T O THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR IS, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASI DE. HOWEVER, IN THOSE CASES WHERE THE AMOUNT HAS ALREADY BEEN RE FUNDED, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR AND IT WILL BE FOR TH E INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT TO PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVIS IONS OF INCOME TAX ACT. (4) WHERE SUCH NOTICES HAVE NOT ALREADY BEEN ISSUED OR ASSESSMENTS HAVE NOT ALREADY BEEN MADE, IF SUCH'AN ACTION IS TAKEN WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS FROM TODAY, ISS UE OF LIMITATION WOULD NOT COME IN THE WAY OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. THIS ORDER IS PASSED HAVING REGARD TO T HE FACT THAT THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING IN THIS COURT BECAUSE OF WHICH IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE INCOME TAX DEPART MENT TO ISSUE THESE NOTICES EARLIER. 9. IN VIEW OF THE CATEGORICAL AFFIRMATION OF THE PROPO SITION LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM HUF (SUPRA) ,IN ITS LATEST DECISION IN THE CASE OF HARI SINGH (SUPR A), WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE AO TREATING T HE INTEREST RECEIVED BY THEM U/S 28 OF THE LAA,1894,AS COMPENSATION FOLL OWING THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN GHANSHYA M HUF(SUPRA).THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.PR.CIT U/S 26 3 IS THEREFORE SET ASIDE. 10. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE STANDS ALLOWED . 6. THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. DR THAT THE CASE LAW OF CHET RAM (HUF) DECIDED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT WILL BE APPLICABL E DO NOT HOLD ANY FORCE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ORDER IN THE CASE OF CHET RAM (HUF) HAS BEEN PASSED BY HONBLE APEX COURT ON 12/09/2017, WH EREAS, THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF HARI SINGH HAS BEEN PASSED BY HONBL E APEX COURT ON 15/09/2017 AND WHEREIN THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS D IRECTED THE 9 ITA NO.3836/DEL/2016 ASSESSING OFFICER TO KEEP IN MIND THE PROPOSITION L AID DOWN BY IT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM DASS (HUF). 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMI TY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE R EVENUE IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/08/ 2019. SD/- SD/- [BHAVNESH SAINI] [T.S. KAPOOR] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DELHI; DATED: 09/08/2019. F{X~{T? F{X~{T? F{X~{T? F{X~{T? FA FA FA FA P.S P.SP.S P.S COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI