Sh. Rameshwar Dayal, Gurgaon V. ITO, Gurgaon

ITA 6254/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5842 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital receipt
• Section: 143(3); 28

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI , ! # $ % , ' ( ! BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, VP & SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] ) / ITA NO.6254/DEL/2016 * / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 RAMESHWAR DAYAL, HOUSE NO.369, VPO MANESAR, GURGAON. PAN-AVSPD0656Q ... .......... /APPELLANT VS THE ITO, WARD-3(4), GURGAON. . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY: SH. ASHWANI KUMAR, CA / RESPONDENT BY: SH. AMIT KUMAR JAIN, SR. DR * / DATE OF HEARING : 21.09.2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.09.2020 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, VP THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CI T(A)-1, GURGAON DATED 19.09.2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AGAI NST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THI S APPEAL:- 1. THAT ORDER PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS ON THE FILE IN AS MUCH AS THE LD. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 2 ITA NO.6254/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO ARBITRARILY UPHOLD ADDITION AM OUNTING TO RS.63,57,390/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON COMPENSATION/ENHANCED COMPEN SATION. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO ARBITRARILY UPHOLD AND MISINTERPRETED OF THE AMENDM ENTS IN SECTION 56(VIII) READ WITH SECTION 145A OF THE ACT, WHICH IS AGAINST THE INTENT AND SPIRIT OF THE LAW. 3. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINS T THE CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON COMPENSATION RECEIPT ON AGRICU LTURAL LAND ACQUIRED BY THE STATE AUTHORITIES. 4. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTS OUT THAT THE I SSUE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE APEX COURT IN CIT VS GHANSHYAM (HUF) 315 ITR 1 (SC). THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE INTEREST HAS BEEN RECEIVED U/S 28 OF THE L AND ACQUISITION ACT (IN SHORT LAC ACT). 5. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON TH E ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND POINTED OUT THAT IT IS NOT CL EAR AS TO WHETHER INTEREST IS RECEIVED UNDER SECTION 28 OR UNDER SECTION 34 OF TH E LAC ACT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACQUIRED BY THE STATE AUT HORITIES AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION. IN ADDITION TO THE COMPENSATION, THE ASSESSEE ALSO RECEIVED INTEREST U NDER THE LAC ACT. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT THE INTEREST HAS BEEN RECEIVED U/S 28 OF THE LAC ACT; HENCE SAME IS NOT TAXABLE IN LINE RATIO LA ID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN CIT VS GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA). HOWEVER, THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING WAS ASKED TO ESTABLISH THE CLAIM OF 3 ITA NO.6254/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 RECEIPT OF INTEREST U/S 28 OF LAC ACT. THE LD.AR F OR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE SAID ISSUE IS NOT IN DISPUTE. 7. THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN CIT VS GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA) HAS LAID DOWN THAT UNDER THE LAC ACT IN ADDITION TO COMPENSA TION, INTEREST IS ALSO RECEIVED BY THE PERSONS. IT HAS FURTHER LAID DOWN THAT INTEREST RECEIVED U/S 28 OF THE LAC ACT IS PART OF COMPENSATION AND HENCE, I S THE CAPITAL RECEIPT. HOWEVER, INTEREST RECEIVED U/S 34 OF THE LAC ACT IS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE PRESENT SET OF FACTS, THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE IS THAT INTEREST HAS BEEN RECEIVED U/S 28 OF THE LAC ACT. HOWEVER, THE NECESSARY CERTIFICATE IN THIS REGARD IS NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, WE DEEM IT FIT TO RESTORE THE LIMITED ISSUE OF VERIFICATION OF STAND OF THE ASSES SEE THAT IT HAS RECEIVED INTEREST ON COMPENSATION U/S 28 OF THE LAC ACT, BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO SHALL VERIFY THE SAME AND IF IT IS SO, THE SAME IS TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ISSUE RA ISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS THUS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL ARE THUS ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ' ( / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ! / VICE PRESIDENT / * DATED : 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2020 * AMIT KUMAR * 4 ITA NO.6254/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 +*,*-#$./*0/$1 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. 23* / THE APPELLANT 2. -423* / THE RESPONDENT 3. * 5$ 6 *7 / THE CIT(A) 4. 8* * 5$* / THE PR. CIT 5. 6. * /9:*-#$# *; ** ; * / DR, ITAT, DELHI :<=***1 GUARD FILE. * + / BY ORDER , 4/$*-#$ // TRUE COPY // > ?@(A , ** *; * ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI