Sh. Bharat Bhushan , Sirsa V. Pr. CIT, Hisar

ITA 597/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6396 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR GULSHAN RAJ
• Keywords: Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 56; 263; 28

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH , !' # $ % &' , '( BEFORE: SH. SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 597/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SHRI BHARAT BHUSHAN, S/O SHRI NANAK CHAND, VILLAGE-DHANI NATAR, DISTT. SIRSA. THE PR. CIT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR 14, HISAR. . / PAN NO: AYDPB8160F / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT & ./ ITA NO. 598/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SHRI GANESH DASS, HUF, 64, DWARKAPURI, SIRSA. THE PR. CIT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR 14, HISAR. ./ PAN NO: AAEHG7940P / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT & ./ ITA NO. 599/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SHRI GURDIT SINGH, HOUSE NO. 55, GALI NO. 2, VILLAGE-KHAIRPUR DISTT. SIRSA. THE PR. CIT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR 14, HISAR. ./ PAN NO: DYRPS3121J / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT & ./ ITA NO. 600/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SHRI DUNI CHAND, HUF, STREET NO. 6, MITC COLONY, KHAIRPUR, SIRSA. THE PR. CIT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR 14, HISAR. ./ PAN NO: AAFHD9845K / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ITA NOS. 597 TO 600 & 602/CHD/2018 PAGE 2 OF 9 ./ ITA NO. 602/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SHRI AMARJEET SINGH, R/O HSMITC STREET, WARD-3, KHAIRPUR, DISTT. SIRSA. THE PR. CIT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR 14, HISAR. ./ PAN NO: ATBPS3276J / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH # ! ' / REVENUE BY : DR. GULSHAN RAJ, CIT-DR $ % ! &/ DATE OF HEARING : 15.10.2018 '()* ! &/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.01.2019 ')/ ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HISAR [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS PR.CIT] ALL DATED 26.02.2018 U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HE REINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') AND ALL RELATING TO ASSES SMENT YEAR 2013-14 . 2. THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT IN ALL THE A BOVE CASES, IT WAS COMMON GROUND, WAS ON ACCOUNT OF IDENTICAL ISSU E RELATING TO TAXABILITY OF INTEREST RECEIVED U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT,(IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS LAA) 1894. SINCE COMMON ISSU E WAS INVOLVED IN ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS, THEY WERE TAKEN UP TOGETH ER FOR HEARING AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORD ER. 3. WE SHALL BE DEALING WITH THE FACTS IN THE CASE O F APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA 597/CHD/2018 AND OUR DECISION RENDE RED IN THIS APPEAL WOULD APPLY MUTATIS-MUTANDIS TO ALL THE OTHE R APPEALS. ITA NOS. 597 TO 600 & 602/CHD/2018 PAGE 3 OF 9 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA 597/CHD/2018 : 1.1 THAT ORDER DATED 26.2.2018 U/S 263(1) OF THE A CT BY LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HISAR HAS BEEN MADE WIT HOUT SATISFYING THE STATUTORY PRECONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACT AND IS THEREFORE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THUS, DESERVES TO BE QUASHED AS SUCH. 1.1 THAT THE LEARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ONCE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON EXAMINAT ION OF THE FACTS ON RECORD AND AFTER MAKING ALL POSSIBLE ENQUIRIES HAD ACCEPTED CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THEN SUCH AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS ERRONE OUS IN AS MUCH AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE MERELY BECAUSE THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAD A DIFFERENT OPINION AND THAT TOO, WI THOUT HAVING ESTABLISHED IN ANY MANNER THAT, VIEW ADOPTED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS AN IMPOSSIBLE VIEW. 1.2 THAT VARIOUS ADVERSE FINDINGS AND OBSERVA TIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN ORDER ARE BASED ON FUNDAMENTAL MISCONCEPTION OF FACTS AND LAW, ARBITRA RY AND UNJUSTIFIED AND THEREFORE UNTENABLE. 1.3 THAT THE FINDING THAT 'ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS NOT BEE N PASSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION RENDERED BY JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND SUPREME C OURT BY REJECTING THE SLP, THEREFORE THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE' IS ALSO NOT BASED ON CORRECT APPRECIATION OF FACTS ON RECORD AND HENCE UNSUSTAINABLE. 1.4 THAT THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX OTHERWISE HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ONCE AN ORDER HAS BEEN MADE U/S 143(3)/147 OF THE ACT THEN, NO NOTICE CAN BE ISSUED TO REVISE AN ORDER U/S U S 143 (3) OF THE ACT AS ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT MERGES WITH AN ORDER U/S 143( 3)/147 OF THE ACT. 2. THAT FURTHER THE ORDER MADE U/S 263 BY INVOKING EXPLANATION 2(D) OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT GRANTING ANY O PPORTUNITY AS TO THE APPLICATION OF THE EXPLANATION AND THEREFORE SUCH AN ORDER IS O THERWISE VITIATED. 3. THAT THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX HAS ALSO ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACT IN GIVING DIRECTION TO ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADD THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 1361614/- REPRESENTING 50% OF THE ENHANCED C OMPENSATION OF RS. 27232257- ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(37) OF THE ACT. 3.1 THAT WHILE MAKING THE AFORESAID ADDITION THE LE ARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRONEOUSLY RELIED O N THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJIT SINGH V. UOI CWP NO. 15506/2013 DATED 14.1.2014 AND OVERLOOKING THE FOLL OWING JUDGMENTS OF APEX COURT: I) 315 ITR 1 (SC) CIT VS. GHANSHYAM (HUF) ( DATED 16.7.2009) II) 367 ITR 4 98(SC) CIT VS. GOVINDBHAI MAMAI YA (DATED 4.9.2014)) III) C.A. NO, 13053/2017 CIT VS. CHET RAM (HUF ) (DATED 12.9.2017) IV) C.A. NO. 15041/2017 UNION OF INDIA AND OR S VS. HARI SINGH AND ORS V) C.A. NO. 18475/2017 INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS-2 RAJKOT VS. MUKTANANDGIRI MAHESHGIRI 3.2 THAT THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX HAS FURTHER ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACT IN INVOKING SECTION 56(2)(VII) R EAD WITH SECTION 57(IV) OF THE ACT TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. ITA NOS. 597 TO 600 & 602/CHD/2018 PAGE 4 OF 9 5. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE AR E THAT THE LD. PR. CIT NOTED FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORD OF THE ASSESSE E THAT DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR, CERTAIN LAND BELONGING TO IT WAS ACQUIRED BY THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HUDA AND COMPENSATION, EN HANCED COMPENSATION AND INTEREST THEREON WERE AWARDED IN L IEU THEREOF BY HUDA/VARIOUS COURTS. AS A RESULT, THE ASSESSEE REC EIVED INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION AMOUNTING TO RS. 27,23,225 /- U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION AND CLAIMED WHOLE OF THE INTEREST EXEMPT AS CAPITAL GAI NS EARNED FROM SALE OF RURAL AGRICULTURAL LAND, IN VIEW OF THE JUD GEMENT OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF GHANSHY AM, HUF REPORTED AT 315 ITR 1 (2009). THE PR. CIT NOTED TH AT THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN ITS JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF MANJIT SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS IN CWP NO. 15006 O F 2013 HAD OBSERVED THAT THE BENEFIT OF TWO JUDGES BENCH DECIS ION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM, HUF COULD NOT BE DE RIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE SAID INTEREST AWARDED BY THE COURT ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITIO N ACT FELL FOR TAXATION U/S 56 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 AS 'INCO ME FROM OTHER SOURCES' IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT. THE LD. PR. CIT F URTHER NOTED THAT SLP AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER HAD BEEN DISMISSED BY T HE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 18.12.2014. T HE LD. PR. CIT, THEREFORE, NOTED THAT THE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF IN TEREST AWARDED U/S 28 OF THE L.A. ACT, 1894 HAD BECOME FINAL. HE, THE REFORE, CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS NOT ERRONEOUS SINCE THE AO HAD NOT SUBJECT ED THE SAME TO TAX. DETAILED REPLY WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, RE PRODUCED AT PARA 3 OF THE ORDER AFTER CONSIDERING WHICH THE LD. PR. CI T HELD THAT THE ITA NOS. 597 TO 600 & 602/CHD/2018 PAGE 5 OF 9 INTEREST RECEIVED U/S 28 OF THE L.A. ACT, 1894 WAS TAXABLE AS IN VIEW OF THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56 SUB-SECTION (2) SUB-CLAUSE (VIII), 57(IV)AND SECTION 145A(B) OF THE ACT AND IN VIEW OF THE LARGER BENCH DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF DR. SHAMLAL NARULA VS CIT (1964) 53 ITR 151, BIKRAM SINGH VS LAND ACQU ISITION COLLECTOR (1997) 224 ITR 551 AND SUNDER VS UNION OF INDIA JT 2001 (8) SC 130 (CONSTITUTION BENCH) WHICH HAD HELD THAT INTEREST U/S 28 WAS AKIN TO INTEREST U/S 34 AND DID NOT FORM PART O F THE COMPENSATION BUT WAS TAXABLE AS REVENUE RECEIPT. TH E LD. PR. CIT HELD THAT THESE DECISIONS HAD BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJIT SINGH (SUPRA) WHIL E HOLDING THAT THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM , HUF WAS NOT GOOD LAW AND HENCE WOULD NOT APPLY. THE LD. PR. CI T FURTHER HELD THAT THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ANOTH ER CASE I.E. NARESH KUMAR JAIN & ORS. VS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. IN CWP 14728 OF 2017 DATED 12.07.2017 HAD AGAIN HELD THAT NO BENEFIT CAN BE DERIVED BY ASSESSEES FROM THE DECISION OF THE AP EX COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM, HUF. CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE L D. PR. CIT HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143( 3) OF THE ACT, HAVING FAILED TO ADD 50% OF THE INTEREST INCOME AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VIII), 57(IV) AND 145A(B) OF THE A CT UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' ,AND HAVING NOT PROPERL Y EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ACCEPTED THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT DUE EXAMINATION OF THE ISSUE OF INTEREST ON ENHANCE D COMPENSATION, WAS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO TH E INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. HE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO RESTORING IT TO THE AO FOR MAKING FRESH ASSESSMENT WITH THE DIRECTION ITA NOS. 597 TO 600 & 602/CHD/2018 PAGE 6 OF 9 TO ADD 50% OF INTEREST INCOME TO THE ASSESSED INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECISIO N PASSED BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NA RESH JAIN (SUPRA),WHICH WAS HEAVILY RELIED UPON BY THE LD. 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 & O RS. 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, THE P ROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT WAS THE LAW OF THE LAND FOLL OWING WHICH INTEREST U/S 28 OF THE LAA,1894,WAS IN THE NATURE OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND NOT IN THE NATURE OF INTEREST 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 LD. PR. CIT, THEREF ORE, WAS ERRONEOUS. 7. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDE R OF THE LD. PR. CIT. 8. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. WE FIND MERI T IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. UNDOUBTEDLY THE LD. ITA NOS. 597 TO 600 & 602/CHD/2018 PAGE 7 OF 9 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 LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS REITERATED THE AFORESAID PROPOSITION IN THE CASE OF HARI SINGH (SUPRA) SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECISION PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF NARESH JAIN (SUPRA).WE HAVE GONE THROUGH TH E ORDER OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF HARI SINGH AND FIND THAT THE UNION OF INDIA HAD COME BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT IN WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESEEES BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT WAS THAT THE ASSESSEES HAD RECEIVED ENHANCED COMPENSATION ON WHICH TAX HAD BEE N DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 194LA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTENDED THAT NO TAX WAS DEDUCTIBLE O N THE SAME AS LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND WITHOUT EXAMINING TH ESE FACTS, TAXES HAD BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. THE HON'BLE HIGH COUR T HAD DIRECTED REFUND OF THE TAXES TO THE ASSESSEES AND HAD DIRECT ED THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/COLLECTOR TO EXAMINE WHETHER TH EIR LANDS WERE AGRICULTURAL OR NOT AND DECIDE WHETHER TAXES WERE L IABLE 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 TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WHO WAS CAPABLE OF DETERMINING THE NATURE OF LAND A S BEING AGRICULTURAL OR NOT FOR THE PURPOSES OF TAXABILITY UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE SAME WAS AGREED TO BY THE HON'B LE APEX COURT ITA NOS. 597 TO 600 & 602/CHD/2018 PAGE 8 OF 9 AND THEY HAD, THEREFORE, DIRECTED THE AO TO EXAMINE THIS ASPECT AND FURTHER CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE PROPOSITION L AID DOWN BY IT IN GHANSHYAM, HUF(SUPRA) VIS A VIS INTEREST RECEIVED U/S 28 OF THE LAA,1894 BE KEPT IN MIND TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE INTEREST RECEIVED AMOUNTS TO COMPENSATION OR NOT. THE RELEVANT FINDI NGS OF THE HON'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 DIRECTION GIVEN TO THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR TO DETERMINE AS TO WHETHER THE LAND IN QU ESTION IS AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT. SINCE THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR H AD . ALREADY DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE AND DEPOSITED WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTM ENT, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, BETTER COURSE OF ACTION, WHICH IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT , IS FOR THE RESPONDENTS TO APPROACH THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER(S) AND TO RAISE THE ISS UE THAT NO TAX IS PAYABLE ON THE COMPENSATION/ENHANCED COMPENSATION WHICH IS RECEIVED BY THEM AS THEIR LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND. ONCE SUCH AN ISSU E IS RAISED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER(S), IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER(S) TO EXAMINE THE FACTS OF EACH CASE AND THEN APPLY THE LAW AS CONTAINED IN TH E INCOME TAX ACT TO DETERMINE THE AFORESAID QUESTION. INSOFAR AS THESE CASES ARE CONCERNED, WE ALLOW THESE APPEALS BY SETTING ASIDE THE DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH 7 AND SUBSTITUTE THE SAME WITH THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIO NS: (1) THE RESPONDENTS SHALL FILE APPROPRIATE RETURNS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER(S) IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS FROM TODAY IN CASE THEY FEEL THAT THE COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF LAND BELONGING TO THEM WHICH HAD BEEN ACQUIRED WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND, AND CLAIM REFUND OF THE TAX WHICH WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND DEPOSITED WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. ON THE FILING OF THESE RETURNS, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER(S) SHALL GO INTO THE AFORESAID QUESTION AND WHEREVER IT IS FOUN D THAT THE COMPENSATION WAS RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE T AX DEPOSITED WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT SHALL BE REFUNDED TO THESE RE SPONDENTS. (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 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. (3) THE D IRECTION TO REFUND THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE (TDS) TO THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR IS, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE. HOWEVER, IN THOSE CASES WHERE THE AMOUNT HAS ALREADY BEEN REFUNDED, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FO R AND IT WILL BE FOR THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT TO PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS 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 WITHI N A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS FROM TODAY, ISSUE OF LIMITATION WOULD NOT COME IN T HE 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 W HICH IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE THESE NOTICE S EARLIER. ITA NOS. 597 TO 600 & 602/CHD/2018 PAGE 9 OF 9 9. IN VIEW OF THE CATEGORICAL AFFIRMATION OF THE PR OPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM HUF (SUPRA) ,IN ITS LATEST DECISION IN THE CASE OF HARI SINGH (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE AO TREATING THE INT EREST RECEIVED BY THEM U/S 28 OF THE LAA,1894,AS COMPENSATION FOLLOWI NG 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 ALL OWED. 11. SINCE IT WAS COMMON GROUND THAT THE ISSUES INVO LVED IN THE REST OF THE APPEALS WAS IDENTICAL TO THAT IN THE PR ESENT APPEAL, OUR DECISION RENDERED HEREIN WILL APPLY MUTATIS MUNDIS TO THE OTHER APPEALS ALSO FOLLOWING WHICH WE ALLOW THE REST OF T HE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. 12. IN EFFECT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES STAN D ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH JAN.,2019. 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