Ravi Dutt, Narwana V. ITO, Jind

ITA 82/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7538 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LAGANPREET SANDHU
• Assessee Lawyers: GAURAV MITTAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Proportionate interest
• Section: 45(5); 147; 56; 28; 154

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 NOS. 1413 TO 1415/CHD/2016 A.Y. : 2007- 08 TO 2009-10 SHRI SATBIR, VS. THE ITO, S/O SHRI CHHAJU RAM, WARD 1, MORPATTI, NARWANA. JIND. PAN NO. CEEPS6223P & ITA NOS. 1416 TO 1418/CHD/2016 A.Y. : 2007- 08 TO 2009-10 SHRI VED PAL, VS. THE ITO, S/O SHRI RAM SARUP, WARD 1, MORPATTI, NARWANA. JIND. PAN NO. AMIPP3931D & ITA NOS. 1419 TO 1421/CHD/2016 A.Y. : 2007 -08 TO 2009-10 SHRI SHEO CHAND, VS. THE ITO, S/O SHRI MATU RAM, WARD 1, MORPATTI, NARWANA. JIND. PAN NO. ALHPC5457Q & ITA NOS. 1422 TO 1424/CHD/2016 A.Y. : 2007 -08 TO 2009-10 SHRI KARAMBIR, VS. THE ITO, S/O SHRI RAM SARUP, WARD 1, MORPATTI, NARWANA. JIND. PAN NO. AJFPB1009E & ITA NOS. 1432 TO 1434/CHD/2016 A.Y. : 2007-08 TO 2009-10 SHRI DHARAM PAL, VS. THE ITO, S/O CHHAJU RAM, WARD 1, MORPATTI, NARWANA. JIND. PAN NO. AQSPD09641C & ITA NOS. 1435 TO 1437/CHD/2016 A.Y. : 2007-08 TO 2009-10 SHRI CHANDGI RAM, VS. THE ITO, S/O SHRI MATU RAM, WARD 1, MORPATTI, NARWANA. JIND. PAN NO. AQOPR5528G 2 ITA NOS. 1413 TO 1437/CHD/2016 & 77 TO 82/CHD/2017- SHRI SATBIR, NARWANA AND OTHERS. ITA NOS. 1429 TO 1431/CHD/2016 A.Y. : 200 7-08 TO 2009-10 SHRI AMARJEET, VS. THE ITO, S/O SHRI BASAU RAM, WARD 1, MORPATTI, NARWANA. JIND. PAN NO. AHAPA8904C & ITA NOS. 77 TO 79/CHD/2017 A.Y. : 2007-0 8 TO 2009-10 SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR (HUF), VS. THE ITO, MORPATTI, NARWANA. WARD 1, PAN NO. AAJHK1178C JIND & ITA NOS. 80 TO 82/CHD/2017 A.Y. : 2007-0 8 TO 2009-10 SHRI RAVI DUTT, VS. THE ITO, S/O SHRI MOMAN, WARD 1, MORPATTI, NARWANA. JIND. PAN NO. AQSPD9643A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI GAURAV MITTAL, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SMT.LAGAN PREET SANDHU, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 10.04.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.07.2018 ORDER PER BENCH : THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY DIFFER ENT ASSESSEES FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. WHEREAS T HE RESPECTIVE APPEALS OF S/SHRI SATBIR AND VED PAL FOR THREE YEAR S EACH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT (APPEAL S), JIND DATED 02.11.2016, THE RESPECTIVE APPEALS OF SHRI SHEO CH AND, SHRI KARAMBIR, SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR, HUF AND SHRI RAVI DUT T FOR THREE YEARS EACH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE L D. CIT (APPEALS) HISSAR DATED 02.11.2016. THE RESPECTIVE APPEALS OF SHRI DHARAM PAL AND SHRI CHANDGI RAM FOR THE THREE YEARS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT (APPEAL S) FARIDABAD 3 ITA NOS. 1413 TO 1437/CHD/2016 & 77 TO 82/CHD/2017- SHRI SATBIR, NARWANA AND OTHERS. DATED 28.07.2016 AND RESPECTIVE APPEALS OF SHRI AMA RJEET FOR THE THREE YEARS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE C IT (APPEALS) FARIDABAD OF JULY,2016. ALL THE APPEALS IN THE CAS E OF EACH OF THE ASSESSEES PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 T O 2009-10. 2. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL AND EVEN THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS IS IDENTICAL, THE SAME WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED BY THIS COMMO N ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. IT IS POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY THAT THE APPEA LS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS.1430 TO 1437/CHD/2016 ARE BARRE D BY LIMITATION BY 79 DAYS, FOR WHICH APPLICATIONS FOR C ONDONATION OF DELAY HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEES IN THE RESPE CTIVE APPEALS, WHEREIN REASONS FOR THE DELAY HAVE BEEN GIVEN THAT DUE TO THE DIFFICULTY IN CONDUCTING/ENGAGING CONCERNED CHARTER ED ACCOUNTANT/REPRESENTATIVE AT CHANDIGARH FOR FILING THE APPEALS AND FURTHER DELAY ON THE PART OF THE CONCERNED CHAR TERED ACCOUNTANT BECAUSE OF HIS OVER BUSY SCHEDULE AND B EING ENGAGED IN OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORTS OF OTHER ASSESS EES FOR WHICH THE LAST DATE WAS APPROACHING. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES ARE AGRICULTUR ISTS AND ILLITRATE VILLAGERS AND DO NOT KNOW THE COMPLEXITY OF THE INCOME TAX LAWS AND FURTHER THEY ARE NOT REGULAR INCOME TA X PAYEES. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AND TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEALS IS, THE REFORE, CONDONED AND WE PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEALS ON MERITS. 4 ITA NOS. 1413 TO 1437/CHD/2016 & 77 TO 82/CHD/2017- SHRI SATBIR, NARWANA AND OTHERS. 5. FIRST WE TAKE UP ITA NOS.1429 TO 1437/CHD/2016 AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) U/S 154 OF THE ACT. ITA NOS.1429 TO 1437/CHD/2016 6. THE BRIEF FACT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE UNDER CONSI DERATION ARE THAT THE LANDS OF THE ASSESSEES WERE COMPULSORILY A CQUIRED BY THE HSIIDC, SIRSA/GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA IN THE YEAR 2005. SUBSEQUENTLY THE COMPENSATION WAS ENHANCED BY THE C OURT. THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION ALONGWITH INTEREST THEREUPON U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEES IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2009-10. THE ASSESSEES TREATED THE INTEREST ON THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION AS PART OF THE COMPENSATION LIABLE TO BE TAXED UNDER SECTION 45(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THE TRANSFERRED LAND BEING RURAL AGRICULTURAL LAND EXEMPT FROM CAPI TAL 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 ASS ESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSE RVED THAT W.E.F. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 THE INTEREST RECEIVE D ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION WAS TAXABLE IN THE YEAR OF RE CEIPT 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 TH E DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF R AMA BAI VS. CIT DATED 8.11.1989 REPORTED IN 181 ITR 400 (SC). T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS OF THE 5 ITA NOS. 1413 TO 1437/CHD/2016 & 77 TO 82/CHD/2017- SHRI SATBIR, NARWANA AND OTHERS. ASSESSEES AND APPLIED THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMA BAI (SUPRA) AND H ELD THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEES ON THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION WAS TO BE PROPORTIONATELY ALLOCATED TO DIFFERENT AS SESSMENT YEARS AS HAVING ACCRUED YEAR AFTER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF DELIVERY OF POSSESSION OF THE LANDS TILL THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER . THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE LANDS OF THE ASSESSEES WE RE 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 ASSESSMENT YEAR AND ADDED THE SAME AS TAXABLE RECEI PT UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES AND 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. 7. BEFORE THE LD.CIT (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. GHANSHYAM (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC) AND CONTENDED THAT AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE SAID DECISION THE IN TEREST RECEIVED U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 DOES NOT P ARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF INTEREST, RATHER IT WAS A PART OF COMP ENSATION OF LAND WHICH WAS NOT TAXABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(37) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF COMPENSATION AND INTEREST THEREUPON RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, HELD THAT THE ISSUE WAS S QUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE 6 ITA NOS. 1413 TO 1437/CHD/2016 & 77 TO 82/CHD/2017- SHRI SATBIR, NARWANA AND OTHERS. OF GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA) AND ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MOVED AN APPL ICATION FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE U/S 154 OF THE ACT BEFORE THE CIT(A) PLEADING THEREIN THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVED ON ENHA NCED COMPENSATION U/S 28 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT WAS CHA RGEABLE 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 (H UF), KARTA MANJEET SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS IN CWP N O.15506 OF 2013, DATE OF DECISION 14.1.2014, WHEREIN, THE HON 'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE AS SESSEE U/S 28 AS WELL AS U/S 34 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT ON TH E ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION RECEIVED WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX U/S 56( 2)(VIII) R.W.S.57(IV) OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED T HAT EVEN THE SLP FILED IN THAT CASE BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME C OURT HAD BEEN DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 18.12.2014 IN SLP N O.34642 OF 2014. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION DATE D 2.2.2016OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAGMAL & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER IN RA-CR N O.46 CLL OF 2014 IN CR NO.7740 OF 2012, WHEREBY THE HON'BLE HIG H COURT HAD RECALLED ITS EARLIER ORDER AND HELD THAT THE IN TEREST OF THE ADDITIONAL AWARD WAS TAXABLE UNDER U/S 56(2)(VIII) R.W.S.57(IV) OF THE ACT. 9. THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID DE CISIONS AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUNDER LAL & ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS IN 7 ITA NOS. 1413 TO 1437/CHD/2016 & 77 TO 82/CHD/2017- SHRI SATBIR, NARWANA AND OTHERS. CWP NO.20014 OF 2015, ORDER DATED 21.9.2015 AND ALS O IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BIR SINGH (HUF) IN ITA NO.209 OF 20 04, ETC. HELD THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, THE MISTA KE APPARENT ON RECORD HAD OCCURRED IN HIS ORDER WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEES WHILE RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE HO N'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA ). HE, THEREFORE, VIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 154 O F THE ACT HELD THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION ON ACCOUNT OF ACQUISITION OF LAND WAS TAXABLE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM ED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED IN T HE REOPENED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CARRIED OUT U/S 147 R.W.S. 1 43(3) OF THE ACT. 10. NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE U S AGITATING THE ABOVE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) U/S 154 OF THE ACT. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. IT IS PERT INENT TO NOTE HERE THAT INTEREST UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT C AN BE AWARDED UNDER SECTION 28 OR/AND UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894. INTEREST AWARDED UNDER SECTI ON 28 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 IS THE INTEREST ON THE EXCESS AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION AWARDED BY THE COURT OVER THE AMOUNT A WARDED BY THE COLLECTOR. IT IS AWARDED BY THE COURT PAYABLE B Y THE COLLECTOR FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE COLLECTOR TOOK THE POSSE SSION OF THE LAND TO THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF SUCH EXCESS INTO COU RT. WHEREAS INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION A CT, 1894 IS GIVEN WHEN THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION AWARDED BY TH E COLLECTOR IS NOT PAID OR DEPOSITED ON OR BEFORE TAKING POSSES SION OF LAND, 8 ITA NOS. 1413 TO 1437/CHD/2016 & 77 TO 82/CHD/2017- SHRI SATBIR, NARWANA AND OTHERS. SUCH INTEREST IS PAYABLE FROM THE TIME OF SO TAKING POSSESSION TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN THE C ASE IN HAND, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 14.3.201 6 HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE DECISION I N 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 PA RT 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 COMPENSATI ON. 12. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY, WHILE RE LYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BIR SINGH (HUF) (SUPRA) AND MANJEET SINGH (HUF) (SUPRA) & OTH ERS AS NOTED ABOVE, RECALLED HIS ORDERS DATED 14.3.2016 AN D CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 13. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPE ALS IS REGARDING THE TAXABILITY OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON EN HANCED COMPENSATION U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 18 94. 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 TAXED ON THE BASIS OF APPORTION MENT FOR EACH YEAR FROM THE DATE OF ACQUISITION OF LANDS TILL TH E RECEIPT OF THE COMPENSATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HO N'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 9 ITA NOS. 1413 TO 1437/CHD/2016 & 77 TO 82/CHD/2017- SHRI SATBIR, NARWANA AND OTHERS. ACQUISITION ACT ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION IS TO BE T REATED AS PART OF THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND WILL NOT BE T AXABLE SEPARATELY AS INTEREST INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INC OME FROM OTHER SOURCES? 14. WE FIND THAT BOTH THESE ISSUES ARE COVERED BY T HE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA) HOLDING THE SAME TO BE IN THE NATURE OF COMPENSATION ITSELF. THE COURT ALSO DEALT WITH THE OTHER ASPECT NAMELY, THE YEAR OF TAX AND ANSWERED THIS QUESTION BY HOLDING THAT IT HAS TO BE TESTED ON RECEIPT BASIS, WHICH ME ANS IT WOULD BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS RECEIVED. THE S AID FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA) HAVE BEEN REITERATED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CAS E 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 O F INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD VS. GHANSHYAM (HUF) REPORTED IN (2009) 8 SCC 412, 6 ALBEIT, IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. IN THAT CASE, THE COUR T DREW DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE INTEREST EARNED UNDER SEC TION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AND THE INTEREST WHICH IS UND ER SECTION 34 OF THE SAID ACT. THE COURT CLARIFIED THAT WHEREAS CO MPENSATION GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE OF THE LAND ACQUIRED WOULD BE 'INCOME', THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION/CONSIDERATION BECOMES INCOME BY V IRTUE OF SECTION 45(5)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE QUESTION W AS WHETHER IT WILL COVER INTEREST AND IF SO, WHAT WOULD BE THE YEA R OF TAXABILITY. THE POSITION IN THIS RESPECT IS EXPLAINED IN PARAS 4 9 AND 50 OF THE JUDGMENT WHICH MAKE THE FOLLOWING READING: 49. AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, SECTION 23(1-A) PROVIDES FOR ADDITIONAL AMOUNT. IT TAKES CARE OF THE INCREASE IN THE VALUE AT THE RATE OF 12% PER ANNUM. SIMILARLY, UNDER SECTIO N 23(2) OF THE 1894 ACT THERE IS A PROVISION FOR SOLATIUM W HICH ALSO REPRESENTS PART OF THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION. SIMILAR LY, SECTION 28 EMPOWERS THE COURT IN ITS DISCRETION TO A WARD INTEREST ON THE EXCESS AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION OVER AND ABOVE WHAT IS AWARDED BY THE COLLECTOR. IT INCLUDES ADDITIONAL AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 23(1-A) AND SOLATIUM UN DER SECTION 23(2) OF THE SAID ACT. SECTION 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 1 894 ACT. IT 10 ITA NOS. 1413 TO 1437/CHD/2016 & 77 TO 82/CHD/2017- SHRI SATBIR, NARWANA AND OTHERS. DEPENDS UPON THE CLAIM, UNLIKE INTEREST UNDER SECTIO N 34 WHICH DEPENDS 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 COMPENSATION. BUT AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, WE HAVE T O GO BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1894 ACT WHICH AWARDS INT EREST BOTH AS AN ACCRETION IN THE VALUE OF THE LANDS ACQUIR ED AND INTEREST FOR UNDUE DELAY. INTEREST UNDER SECTION 28 UNLIKE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 IS AN ACCRETION TO THE VA LUE, HENCE IT IS A PART OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION OR CONSIDERATI ON 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) OF THE 1961 ACT FORMS PA RT OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 45(5)(B) OF THE 1 961 ACT. 8. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT WHEREAS INTEREST U NDER SECTION 34 IS NOT TREATED AS A PART OF INCOME SUBJECT TO TAX, T HE INTEREST EARNED UNDER SECTION 28, WHICH IS ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION, IS TREATED AS A ACCRETION TO THE VALUE AND THEREFORE, PART OF TH E ENHANCED COMPENSATION OR CONSIDERATION MAKING IT EXIGIBLE TO TAX. AFTER HOLDING THAT INTEREST ON ENHANCED 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 HOLDING THAT IT HAS TO BE TESTED ON RECEIPT BASIS, WHICH MEANS IT W OULD BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS RECEIVED. IT WOULD MEAN THA T CONVERSE POSITION I.E. SPREAD OVER OF THIS INTEREST ON ACCRUAL BASIS IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. 15. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER BROUGH T OUR ATTENTION THE LATEST DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHET RAM (HUF) DATED 12.9.2017 IN C IVIL APPEAL NO.13053/2017 WHEREIN ALSO THE HON'BLE SUPREME COUR T HAS AGAIN REITERATED THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN IN THE C ASE OF GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA), WHICH WE FIND HAS BEEN FU RTHER REITERATED IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA VS. HARI S INGH & OTHERS IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1504 OF 2017 DATED 15.9.2017, A S UNDER: (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 11 ITA NOS. 1413 TO 1437/CHD/2016 & 77 TO 82/CHD/2017- SHRI SATBIR, NARWANA AND OTHERS. (8) SCC 412] IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE INTEREST GIVEN UNDER THE SAID PROVISION AMOUNTS TO COMPENSATION OR NOT. THE SAID DECISION AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COU RT SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECISION PASSED BY THE HON'BLE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJEET SINGH(HUF) (SUPRA ) WHICH HAD DEALT WITH THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN GHANSHYAM, HUF (SUPRA). THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE S AME, THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN IN GHANSHYAM, HUF (SUPRA) REM AINS AND WHICH HAVING BEEN LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE APEX COU RT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND AND HAS TO BE FOLLOWED BY ALL LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE INTEREST REC EIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR ON THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF ITS LAND U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISIT ION ACT, IS IN THE NATURE OF COMPENSATION AND NOT INTEREST WHICH IS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES 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 T HE SAME THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) UPHOLDING THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPEN SATION IS, NOT SUSTAINABLE. 16. FURTHER THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION REGARDIN G THE TAXABILITY OF INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION IS A DEBATABLE ISSUE AND DO NOT CONSTITUTE A MISTAKE APPARENT ON R ECORD. IN VIEW OF THE LIMITED AND RESTRICTED POWERS OF RECTIF ICATION U/S 154 OR U/S 254 OF THE ACT, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT 12 ITA NOS. 1413 TO 1437/CHD/2016 & 77 TO 82/CHD/2017- SHRI SATBIR, NARWANA AND OTHERS. ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD HAD OCCURRED IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE HEREBY ALLOWED. ITA NOS.1413 TO 1424/CHD/2016 & 77 TO 82/CHD/2017: 17. IN THESE APPEAL THE ASSESSEES HAVE AGITATED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND THEREBY MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS ON SIMILAR PROPOSITION AS DISCUS SED ABOVE. ALMOST IDENTICAL WORDED ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IN THESE APPEALS WHEREIN AT PARA 4.3 O F THE ORDER, THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVAT IONS: 4.3 THE ISSUE WHETHER THE INTEREST PAID UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 28 OF LA ACT IS PART OF THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION OR IS IT TAXABLE AS INTEREST INCOME HAS BEEN A DEBATABLE ISSUE AND HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY NUMBER OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES. 18. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE REVEALS THAT THE LD.CIT( APPEALS) HIMSELF HAS HELD THAT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS A DEBATABLE ISSUE AT TIME OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AND THE ISSUE WAS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA) WHICH WAS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAS ALSO DISCUSSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 147 OF THE ACT. THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA) SINCE HAVE BEEN REITERATED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOVINDBHAI MAM AIYA 13 ITA NOS. 1413 TO 1437/CHD/2016 & 77 TO 82/CHD/2017- SHRI SATBIR, NARWANA AND OTHERS. (SUPRA) AND FURTHER IN THE CASE OF CHET RAM (HUF) ( SUPRA) AND IN THE CASE OF HARI SING (SUPRA),AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. 19. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE IMPUGNED A DDITIONS ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE REFERRED TO DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND THEY ARE ACCORDINGLY ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 20. THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE AS SESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.07.2018 SD/- SD/- (B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 09.07.2018 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH