Shri Varinder Singh, Panchkula V. ACIT, Panchkula

ITA 399/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9064 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RENU AMBTABH
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 28

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, B, CHANDIGARH , ! . .., # $, %& BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 399/CHD/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SH. VARINDER SINGH, H.NO. 85,VILALGE KHANGESRA, PO KOT, PANCHKULA THE ACIT, PANCHKULA ./PAN NO: AJBPS8512K / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT ./ ITA NO. 740/CHD/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 THE ITO, WARD-5, PANCHKULA SH. VARINDER SINGH, H.NO. 85,VILALGE KHANGESRA, PO KOT, PANCHKULA ./PAN NO: AJBPS8512K / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT ! /ASSESSEE BY : SH. SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADVOCATE SHRI ASHOK GOYAL,CA ' ! / REVENUE BY : SMT. RENU AMBTABH, CIT DR # $ % /DATE OF HEARING : 23.10. 2018 &'() % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.12. 2018 %'/ ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED ARE THE CROSS APPEALS, ONE BY THE AS SESSEE AND OTHER BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.03.2016 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA [HEREINAFTER R EFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]. ITA NOS. 399 & 740/CHD/2016 SH. VARINDER SINGH, PANCHKULA 2 2. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS RELATING TO THE TAXABILITY OF THE INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION ON COMPULSORY ACQ UISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, T HE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WHICH WAS COMPULSORY ACQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT EARLIER THE LAND OF ONE SHRI YOGINDER SINGH WAS ALSO ACQUIRED A ND THE SAME WAS TREATED AS NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ACCORDINGLY WA S TREATED AS CAPITAL ASSET EXIGIBLE TO CAPITAL GAINS TAX. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE INHERITED THE LAND OF SAID SH. YOGIND ER SINGH, BEING HIS LEGAL HEIR, HENCE, THE SAME PROPOSITION WILL APPLY TO TH E LAND IN QUESTION. FURTHER, THAT THE ASSESSEE EVEN DID NOT FURNISH ANY RELIANCE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE LAND WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. HE, T HEREFORE, TREATED THE LAND IN QUESTION AS CAPITAL ASSET AND ASSESSED THE CAPIT AL GAIN TAX ACCORDINGLY ON THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FURTH ER THE INTEREST RECEIVED ON THE SAID COMPENSATION WAS TREATED AS INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCES. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ). BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED CERTAIN DOCUMENTS I N THE SHAPE OF JAMABANDI ETC. AND PLEADED THAT THE LAND IN QUEST ION WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE LD. CIT(A) ADMITTED THESE DOCUMENTS IN E VIDENCE AND HELD THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST RECEIVED ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION, HE HELD THAT HE SAME WAS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES/. ITA NOS. 399 & 740/CHD/2016 SH. VARINDER SINGH, PANCHKULA 3 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) , THE REVENUE HAS COME IN APPEAL PLEADING THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WITHO UT PROPERLY EXAMINING THE DOCUMENTS, AND EVEN WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE AND REBUT THOSE DOCUMENTS, HAS I N A MECHANICAL MANNER HELD THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) PLEADING THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WRONGLY TREATED THE I NTEREST ON THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND FUR THER THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CASE OF CIT VS. GHANSHYAM (HUF) (2009) 115 ITR 1 , THE INTEREST RECEIVED ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION IS TO BE TREATED AS PART OF T HE COMPENSATION AND AS SUCH WAS NOT EXIGIBLE TO TAXATION. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE. SO FAR AS THE ISSUE AS TO THE TAXA BILITY OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUIS ITION ACT IS CORNERED, THE SAME IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THI S TRIBUNAL IN THE GROUP OF CASES WITH LEAD CASE IN SHRI SATBIR VS. ITO & OTHERS IN ITA NOS. 1413 TO 1415/CHD/2016 VIDE ORDER DATED 9.7.2018, ANOTHER GROUP OF CASES WITH LEAD CASE IN ITO VS. SH. NACHHATTAR SINGH & O THERS IN M.A. NOS. 61/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NOS. 564/CHD/2010) ORDER DATED 7.2.2018 AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF SOM NATH, YAMUNANAGAR VS. ITO IN I TA NO. 552/CHD/2016 ORDER DATED 11.7.2018, WHEREIN, THE TR IBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GHANSHYAM (HUF)(SUPRA) , AND THE DECISION OF TH E HON'BLE PUNJAB & ITA NOS. 399 & 740/CHD/2016 SH. VARINDER SINGH, PANCHKULA 4 HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJEET SINGH ( HUF) KARTA MANJEET SINGH VS. UOI IN CWP NO. 15506 OF 2013 DATED 14.01 .2014 AND FURTHER DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN UOI VS. HARI SINGH AND OTHERS IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1504 OF 2017 DATED 15.9.2017 AN D ANOTHER DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. CHET RAM (HU F) DATED 12.9.2017 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13053/2017 HAS HELD THAT THAT T HE INTEREST RECEIVED BY AN ASSESSEE ON COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTUR AL LAND U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, IS TO BE TREATED AS PART OF T HE COMPENSATION AND FURTHER THAT THE COMPENSATION BEING EXEMPT U/S 10( 37) OF THE ACT IS NOT EXIGIBLE TO THE TAX. 7. SO FAR AS THE ACTUAL ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE LAN D IN QUESTION IS AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT( A) HAS SIMPLY RELIED UPON THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE SAME. MOREO VER, THE LAND IN QUESTION IS A LARGE CHUNK OF LAND, A PART OF WHICH MAY BE AGRICULTURAL LAND OR PART OF WHICH MAY NOT BE. THE RECORD SUBMITTED B Y THE ASSESSEE REQUIRES THROUGH SCRUTINY. WE, THEREFORE, RESTORE THIS FACT UAL ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE LAND RECORDS SUBMI TTED BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE JAMABANDI / KHASRA GIRDAWARI AND ALSO TO CONDUCT NECESSARY ENQUIRIES, IF SO REQUIRED, TO FIND OUT W HETHER THE ENTIRE LAND OR PART THEREOF IS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND IF FOUND SO, THEN TO ALLOW THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI SATB IR VS. ITO & ORS (SUPRA) AND IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SH. NACHHATTAR SINGH AND ORS (SUPRA). THIS ITA NOS. 399 & 740/CHD/2016 SH. VARINDER SINGH, PANCHKULA 5 MATTER IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS THEREFORE, RESTORED T O THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH AS DIRECTED ABOVE. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE TREATED AS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.12.2018. SD/- SD/- ( . . , # $ / B.R.R. KUMAR) %& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( / SANJAY GARG ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 13.12. 2018 .. '+ ,- .- / 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