Raj Bala, Jagadhari V. DCIT, Yamunanagar

ITA 540/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0735 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 23-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Proportionate interest
• Section: 143(3); 45(5); 147; 56; 263; 28; 10; 154

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCH A, CHANDIGARH !, ' # , . %.. . & , '( # BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR , A M ./ ITA NO. 539/CHD/2016 '* + ,+ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI. SURINDER KUMAR S/O HARI CHAND R/O HOUSE NO. 1450, VILLAGE GARHI MUNDO, SECTOR-17 HUDA, JAGADHRI THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, HUDA, JAGADHRI YAMUNA NAGAR ./ PAN NO: BPUPK5594P / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ./ ITA NO. 540/CHD/2016 '* + ,+ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 RAJ BALA D/O UMRAO SINGH R/O HOUSE NO. 1378, VILLAGE GARHI MUNDO, SECTOR-17 HUDA, JAGADHRI THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, HUDA, JAGADHRI YAMUNA NAGAR ./ PAN NO: BPUPK5594P / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ./ ITA NO. 541/CHD/2016 '* + ,+ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI. NARINDER KUMAR S/O HARI CHAND R/O HOUSE NO. 1450, VILLAGE GARHI MUNDO, SECTOR-17 HUDA, JAGADHRI THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, HUDA, JAGADHRI YAMUNA NAGAR ./ PAN NO: BQAPK9908E / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ./ ITA NO. 542/CHD/2016 '* + ,+ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI. SANJEEV KUMAR S/O RAJINDER SINGH R/O HOUSE NO. 1378, VILLAGE GARHI MUNDO, SECTOR-17 HUDA, JAGADHRI THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, HUDA, JAGADHRI YAMUNA NAGAR 2 ./ PAN NO: BPFPK7687Q / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ./ ITA NO. 543/CHD/2016 '* + ,+ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI. AMAR NATH S/O ANTU RAM R/O HOUSE NO. 1270, DHIMAN NAGAR, CHOTTI LINE, JAGADHRI THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, HUDA, JAGADHRI YAMUNA NAGAR ./ PAN NO: AKOPN7298K / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ./ ITA NO. 673/CHD/2016 '* + ,+ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SH. VIRENDER SINGH S/O SH. ISHWAR SINGH THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SMT. KELA DEVI R/O VILL: GARHI MUNDO SECTOR-17, HUDA, JAGADHRI THE DCIT CIRCLE, HUDA JAGADHRI, YAMUNA NAGAR ./ PAN NO: CPRPS8997E / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT '* +- . / '/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH 0# . / '/ REVENUE BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH ./ ITA NO. 547/CHD/2016 '* + ,+ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SMT. SURJIT KAUR VILL: KUNDI, SECTOR 20 PANCHKULA THE ITO, WARD- 3 PANCHKULA ./ PAN NO: ALYPK7839G / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ./ ITA NO. 548/CHD/2016 '* + ,+ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SH. SIRIA S/O SHRI. KISHAN VILL: KUNDI, SECTOR-20 PANCHKULA THE ITO, WARD- 3 PANCHKULA 3 ./ PAN NO: CVOPS3760E / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ./ ITA NO. 549/CHD/2016 '* + ,+ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 LATE SH. CHARAN DASS WALIA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. ASHOK KUMAR VILL: FATEHPUR, PANCHKULA THE ITO, WARD- 3 PANCHKULA ./ PAN NO: ABJPD8920C / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ./ ITA NO. 550/CHD/2016 '* + ,+ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 LATE SMT. BIMLA WATI D/O SH. CHITTAR LAL THROUGH LEGAL HEIR OF SH. DHANENDER KUMAR R/O VILL: FATEHPUR PANCHKULA THE ITO, WARD- 3 PANCHKULA ./ PAN NO: AAMPW1732D / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ./ ITA NO. 551/CHD/2016 '* + ,+ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SH. DHANENDER KUMAR (HUF) VILL: FATEHPUR, SECTOR-4 PANCHKULA THE ITO, WARD- 3 PANCHKULA ./ PAN NO: AACHD9241C / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT '* +- . / '/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VINEET KRISHAN 0# . / '/ REVENUE BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH ./ ITA NO. 368/CHD/2014 '* + ,+ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SH. NACHHATAR SINGH 1087, SECTOR-8 HOUSE BOARD COLONY AMBALA CITY THE CIT PANCHKULA 4 ./ PAN NO: BZWPS3748D / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT '* +- . / '/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ROHIT GOEL 0# . / '/ REVENUE BY : SHRI JAGDISH KUMAR ./ ITA NO. 948/CHD/2016 '* + ,+ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SMT. SONA DEVI D/O SH. NAND RAM VILL: CHOWKI, PANCHKULA THE ITO WARD-3, PANCHKULA ./ PAN NO: AVCPD2768H / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ./ ITA NO. 949/CHD/2016 '* + ,+ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SMT. KARESHNI DEVI D/O SH. ACHHAR RAM VILL: CHOWKI, PANCHKULA THE ITO WARD-3, PANCHKULA . / PAN NO: AVCPD2768H / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT '* +- . / '/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MUKESH AGGARWAL 0# . / '/ REVENUE BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH & *1 . (/ DATE OF HEARING : 29/08/2018 234, . (/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04/10/2018 '5/ ORDER PER BENCH : THESE APPEALS ARISE OUT OF VARIOUS CITS(A) IN NWR A ND CIT(PANCHKULA) AND REPRESENTED BY DIFFERENT COUNSELS. SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS SAME, THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF A COMMON ORDER. THE CO RE GROUND INVOLVED IS TAXABILITY OF THE INTEREST RECEIVED ON ENHANCED COM PENSATION. THE OTHER GROUNDS TAKEN UP BY THE ASSESSEE CONSISTS OF ACTION OF THE REVENUE INVOKED UNDER SECTION 147, 154, AND 263. 5 2. THE BRIEF FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE UNDER CONS IDERATION ARE THAT THE LANDS OF THE ASSESSEES WERE COMPULSORILY ACQUIRED BY THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA IN THE EARLIER YEARS. SUBSEQU ENTLY THE COMPENSATION WAS ENHANCED BY THE COURT. THE ENHANCED COMPENSATIO N ALONGWITH INTEREST THEREUPON U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEES IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09, 2010-11 AND 2011-12. THE ASSESSEES TREATED THE INTEREST ON THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION A S PART OF THE COMPENSATION LIABLE TO BE TAXED UNDER SECTION 45(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THE TRANSFERRED LAND BEING RURAL AGRICULTURAL L AND EXEMPT FROM CAPITAL GAINS TAX U/S 10(37) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. SUBSEQUENTLY, FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE COMPUTATION O F INCOME ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT W.E.F. ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2010-11 THE INTEREST RECEIVED ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION WAS TAXABLE IN TH E YEAR OF RECEIPT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145A(B) OF THE ACT. HOWE VER, PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 INTEREST RECEIVED ON COMPENSATION/ENHANCED COMPENSATION WAS TAXABLE ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS FOR THE EACH YEAR IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RAMA BAI VS. CIT DATED 8.11.1989 REPORTED IN 181 ITR 400 (SC). THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, THEREFORE, RECTIFIED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSESSEES AND APP LIED THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F RAMA BAI (SUPRA) AND HELD THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEES ON THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION WAS TO BE PROPORTIONATELY ALLOCATED TO DIFFERENT ASSESS MENT YEARS AS HAVING ACCRUED YEAR AFTER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF DELIVERY OF POSSES SION OF THE LANDS TILL THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE LANDS OF THE ASSESSEES WERE ACQUIRED IN THE YEAR 2005, WHEREAS THE INTEREST ON THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION HAD BEEN RECEIVED IN THE YEAR 2008. HE, THEREFORE, CALCULATED THE PROPORTIONATE INTEREST PERTAINING TO EACH ASSESSMEN T YEAR AND ADDED THE SAME AS TAXABLE RECEIPT UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES A ND ACCORDINGLY, ADDED THE PROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF INTEREST IN THE IMPUGNED YE ARS IN THE REOPENED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. 3. BEFORE THE LD.CIT (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GHANSH YAM (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC) AND CONTENDED THAT AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE SAID DECISION THE INTEREST RECEIVED U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION AC T, 1894 DOES NOT PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF INTEREST, RATHER IT WAS A PART OF COMP ENSATION OF LAND WHICH WAS 6 NOT TAXABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(37) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF COMPENSATION AND INTEREST THEREUPON RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, HELD THAT THE ISSUE WAS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (HUF ) (SUPRA) AND ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MOVED AN APPL ICATION FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE U/S 154 OF THE ACT BEFORE THE CIT(A) PLEADIN G THEREIN THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVED ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION U/S 28 OF LAND AC QUISITION ACT WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES U /S 56(2)(VIII) R.W.S. 57(IV) OF THE ACT IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJEET SINGH (HUF), KARTA MANJEET SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS IN CWP NO.15506 OF 2013, DATE OF DECISION 1 4.1.2014, WHEREIN, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE INTEREST RECEI VED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 28 AS WELL AS U/S 34 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT ON THE A DDITIONAL COMPENSATION RECEIVED WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX U/S 56(2)(VIII) R.W. S.57(IV) OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT EVEN THE SLP FILED IN THAT CASE BEFO RE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAD BEEN DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 18.12.201 4 IN SLP NO.34642 OF 2014. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION DATED 2.2. 2016OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAGMAL & ANOTHE R VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER IN RA-CR NO.46 CLL OF 2014 IN CR NO.7740 OF 2012, WHEREBY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAD RECALLED ITS EARLIER ORDER AND HELD THAT THE INTEREST OF THE ADDITIONAL AWARD WAS TAXABLE UNDER U/S 56(2)(VIII) R.W.S.57(IV) OF THE ACT. 5. THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID DE CISIONS AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUNDER LAL & ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS IN CWP NO.20014 OF 2015, ORDER DATED 21.9.2015 AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BIR SINGH (HUF) IN ITA NO.209 OF 2004, ETC. HELD THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, THE MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD HAD OCCURRED IN HIS ORDER WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEES WHILE RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA). HE, THEREFORE, VIDE THE IM PUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT HELD THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVED BY T HE ASSESSEE ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION ON ACCOUNT OF ACQUISITION OF LAND WAS TAXABLE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HE, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED THE ADDITI ONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED IN THE REOPENED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS CARRIED OUT U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. 7 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. IT IS PERTI NENT TO NOTE HERE THAT INTEREST UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT CAN BE AWAR DED UNDER SECTION 28 OR/AND UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION A CT, 1894. INTEREST AWARDED UNDER SECTION 28 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 IS T HE INTEREST ON THE EXCESS AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION AWARDED BY THE COURT OVER TH E AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE COLLECTOR. IT IS AWARDED BY THE COURT PAYABLE B Y THE COLLECTOR FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE COLLECTOR TOOK THE POSSESSION OF THE L AND TO THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF SUCH EXCESS INTO COURT. WHEREAS INTEREST UNDER S ECTION 34 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 IS GIVEN WHEN THE AMOUNT OF C OMPENSATION AWARDED BY THE COLLECTOR IS NOT PAID OR DEPOSITED ON OR BEFORE TAKING POSSESSION OF LAND, SUCH INTEREST IS PAYABLE FROM THE TIME OF SO TAKING POSSESSION TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE DE CISION IN CASE OF GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT HAS HELD INTERE ST U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1984, UNLIKE INTEREST U/S 34 IS AN ACCRETION TO THE VALUE OF THE LAND , HENCE IT IS PART OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION OR CONSIDERATION WHICH IS NOT THE CASE WITH INTEREST U/S 34A. SO ALSO ADDITIONAL AMOUNT U/S 23(1A) AND SOLATIUM U/S 23(2) FORM PART OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION. 7. THE CORE GROUND INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS REG ARDING THE TAXABILITY OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION U/S 28 O F THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894. NOW, THERE ARE TWO QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, FIRST ISSUE IS REGARDING THE YEAR OF TAXABILITY OF THE INTEREST IN COME 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 TAX ED ON THE BASIS OF APPORTIONMENT FOR EACH YEAR FROM THE DATE OF ACQUI SITION OF LANDS TILL THE RECEIPT OF THE COMPENSATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE DEC ISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMA BAI (SUPRA); THE SECOND I SSUE 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 ENHAN CED 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. TH E COURT ALSO DEALT WITH THE OTHER ASPECT NAMELY, THE YEAR OF TAX AND ANSWERED T HIS QUESTION BY HOLDING THAT IT HAS TO BE TESTED ON RECEIPT BASIS, WHICH MEANS I T WOULD BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN 8 WHICH IT IS RECEIVED. THE SAID FINDINGS GIVEN IN TH E CASE OF GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA) HAVE BEEN REITERATED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF GOVINDBHAI MAMAIYA (SUPRA) OBSERVING AS UNDER: IN SO FAR AS THE SECOND QUESTION IS CONCERNED, THAT IS ALSO COVERED BY ANOTHER JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X, FARIDABAD VS. GHANSHYAM (HUF) REPORTED IN (2009) 8 SCC 412, 6 ALBEIT, IN FA VOUR OF THE REVENUE. IN THAT CASE, THE COURT DREW DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE INTER EST EARNED UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AND THE INTEREST WHIC H IS UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE SAID ACT. THE COURT CLARIFIED THAT WHEREAS COMPENSA TION GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE OF THE LAND 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 THIS RESPECT IS EXPLAINED IN PARAS 49 AND 50 OF THE JUDGMENT WHICH MAKE THE FOLL OWING 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 UND ER 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. I T DEPENDS UPON THE CLAIM, UNLIKE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 WHICH DEPEN DS ON UNDUE 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 EA RNED UNDER SECTION 28, WHICH IS ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION, IS TREATED AS A ACCRETION TO THE VALUE AND THEREFORE, PART OF THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION OR CON SIDERATION MAKING IT EXIGIBLE TO TAX. AFTER HOLDING THAT INTEREST ON ENH ANCED 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 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. IT WOULD MEAN THAT CONVERSE POSITION I.E. SPREAD OVER OF THIS INTEREST ON ACCRUAL BASIS IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. 9. THE LD. COUNSELS FOR ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER BROUGH T 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 WHERE IN ALSO THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS AGAIN REITERATED THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA), WHICH WE FIND HAS BEEN FU RTHER REITERATED IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA VS. HARI SINGH & OTHERS IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1504 OF 2017 DATED 15.9.2017, AS UNDER: 9 (2) WHILE DETERMINING AS TO WHETHER THE COMPENSATI ON PAID WAS FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER(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 '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. 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 OF MANJEET SINGH(HUF) (SUPRA) WHICH HAD DEALT WITH THE DECISIO NS OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN GHANSHYAM, HUF (SUPRA). THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF TH E SAME, THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN IN GHANSHYAM, HUF (SUPRA) REMAINS AND WHICH HA VING BEEN LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND AND H AS TO BE FOLLOWED BY ALL LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HOLD TH AT THE INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR ON THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF ITS LAND U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, IS IN THE NATURE OF COMPENSATION AND NOT INTEREST WHICH IS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER S OURCES U/S 56 OF THE ACT AS HELD BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE COMPENSATION BEI NG 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 MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION IS, NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE RATIO OF THE ORDER LAID DOWN VIDE ORDER DT. 09/07/2018 IN A GROUP OF CASES IN ITA NO. 1413 TO 1 437/CHD/2016 WOULD APPLY MUTATIS-MUTANDIS TO THE CORE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF INTEREST RECEIV ED ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE HEREBY ALLOWED. 11. SINCE THE APPEALS ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS OF THE CORE GROUND, ANY ADJUDICATION THE OTHER GROUNDS TA KEN UP IN DIFFERENT CASES UNDER SECTION 147 AND 154 BECOMES ONLY ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND HENCE NOT BEING ADJUDICATED. SINCE THE ADJUDICATION RELIED ON THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE COUNTRY AND ALSO THE JUDGMENTS OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS THE THE ACTION PROPOSED BY THE CIT(PANCHKULA) UNDER SECTION 263 IS HEREBY QUASHED AS AT THIS JUNCTURE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE (ITA NO. 368/CHD/2014). REGARDING THE TAXES ALREADY PAID (IT A NO.673/CHD/2016), NO DIRECTIONS ARE BEING PASSED WITH REFERENCE TO THE I SSUE OF REFUND TO THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE MAY CONSIDER FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 10 PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT,1961 ON RECEIPT OF APP LICATION FROM THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 12. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/10/2018 SD/- SD/- ! . %.. . & , (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) ' #/ JUDICIAL MEMBER '( #/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG DATE : 04/10/2018 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ! ' #/ CIT 4. ! ' # ()/ THE CIT(A) 5. &'( )*, ! , )*!-, ./0(1/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. (02 34/ GUARD FILE ' !/ BY ORDER, 5 6!/ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR