Income-tax Officer , Latur V. Pramod Wamanrao Honerao, Latur

MA 329/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves four appeals by the Income Tax Officer against Shri Kamlakar Wamanrao Patil and others, concerning the taxability of interest received under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the assessment year 2013-2014. Initially, the Tribunal had ruled that such interest was not taxable, aligning with the view that it is part of the compensation for land acquisition. However, upon review, the Tribunal acknowledged an error in not applying the statutory provisions introduced by the Finance Act, 2009, which explicitly tax such interest as enhanced compensation under section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in Shivajirao vs. State of Maharashtra, which supported the taxability of this interest income.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137425 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: AllowedAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2020
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF), CIT Vs. Chet Ram (HUF), Shri Madhav Pandharinath Kande Vs. ITO, ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., Shivaji Rao vs. State of Maharashtra, Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh Vs. Union of India, Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, Dr. Shamlal Narula vs. CIT, Ghanshyam (HUF) Vs. CIT, Hari Singh and others Vs. Union of India, PCIT Vs. ABC Paper Limited
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 28; 11; 56(2); 194LA; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GD PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.No.321/PUN./2022 Arising out of I.T.A.No.2585/PUN./2016/ - Assessment Year 2013-2014 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Latur vs. Shri Kamlakar Wamanrao Patil, A/P Dhanora, Tal. Ahmedpur, Latur – 413515 PAN: CBWPP1670A (Applicant/Respondent) (Respondent/Appellant) M.A.No.322/PUN./2022 Arising out of I.T.A.No.2580/PUN./2016 - Assessment Year 2013-2014 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Latur vs. Shri Satish Wamanrao Honerao, Bank Colony, Ahmedpur, Latur–413515 PAN: AAFPH2007M (Applicant/Respondent) (Respondent/Appellant) M.A.No.323/PUN./2022 Arising out of I.T.A.No.2582/PUN./2016 - Assessment Year 2013-2014 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Latur vs. Shri Padmakar Wamanrao Honerao, Pochamma Gali, Latur – 413512 PAN: AAPPH0981E (Applicant/Respondent) (Respondent/Appellant) M.A.No.329/PUN./2022 Arising out of I.T.A.No.2583/PUN./2016 - Assessment Year 2013-2014 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Latur vs. Shri Pramod Wamanrao Honerao, Bank Colony, Ahmedpur, Latur–413515 PAN: AIXPH9086L (Applicant/Respondent) (Respondent/Appellant) Assessees by : Shri Sharad Shah Revenue by : Shri M.G. Jasnani 2 M.A.Nos.321 to 323 & 329/PUN./2022 Date of Hearing : 16.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : These Revenue’s four miscellaneous applications filed u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") seek to recall/rectify this tribunal’s common order dated 11.09.2019 allowing the tax payers’ respective as many appeals ITA.Nos.2585, 2580, 2582 & 2583/PUN./2016 thereby holding that interest received u/sec.28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would not be taxable as under : “7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The limited issue which arises in this bunch of appeals with lead appeal in Satish Wamanrao Honerao is the chargeability of interest received by assessee under section 28 of LAC Act on account of compulsory acquisition of land. The contention of assessee in this regard is that the said amount is capital receipt and not chargeable to tax. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) and in other cases had held that interest awarded under section 28 of LAC Act was in the nature of solatium and was an integral part of compensation. It was further held that interest received under section 34 of LAC Act was on account of delayed payment of compensation and was revenue receipt. 3 M.A.Nos.321 to 323 & 329/PUN./2022 Though the amounts received under sections 28 and 34 of LAC Act are termed as interest but two stands at different pedestal in so far as the Income Tax Act is concerned. Such is the proposition laid down by Pune Bench of Tribunal in Shri Madhav Pandharinath Kande Vs. ITO (supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Chet Ram (HUF) talks of the year of taxability which is not in dispute. In the totality of the same, we allow the plea of assessee that interest received under section 28 of LAC Act is to be treated as part of compensation and is not to be charged as income from other sources in the hands of assessee. Thus, modified grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed.” 2. Next come the vehement rival submissions. Mr. Jasnani submitted that the legislature has already introduced sections 56(2)(viii) r.w.s.57(iv) of the Act vide Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2010, providing for assessment of such an interest income as enhanced compensation and therefore, this tribunal’s impugned common order dated 11.09.2019 not considering the same suffers from an apparent mistake liable to be recalled/rectified u/s.254(2) of the Act in light of hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in the case of ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC); CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC). He further placed reliance on hon’ble jurisdictional 4 M.A.Nos.321 to 323 & 329/PUN./2022 high court’s decision in Shivaji Rao vs. State of Maharashtra [W.P.No.5402 of 2013] deciding the very issue in Revenue’s favour, as considered in our yet another co-ordinate bench’s order in ITA.No.235/PUN./2023 dated 27.04.2023 as under : “3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to vehement rival stands against and in support of the lower authorities findings holding the assessee’s interest income received under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as taxable under the head income from “Other” sources under section 56(2)(viii) of the Act. The assessee’s case before us is that such an interest income is part of the land acquisition compensation itself and not taxable, therefore, in light of Ghanshyam(HUF) Vs. CIT [2009] 315 ITR 1 (SC). Learned counsel thereafter quoted [2016] 138 DTR 229 (Guj) Moraliya B Balashai Vs. ITO and [2019] 471 ITR 169 (Bom), Ruesh R.Shah Vs. Union of India and vehemently contended that the learned lower authorities action under challenge is hardly sustainable in law. 4. Mr.Jasnani on the other hand has quoted this tribunal’s co- ordinate bench’s order in Basweshwar Mallikarjun Bidwe Vs. ITO in ITA No.1012/PUN/2017 dated on 05.10.2020 in department’s favour as under : “3. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return declaring total income of Rs.42,370/-. He received enhanced compensation at 5 M.A.Nos.321 to 323 & 329/PUN./2022 Rs.38,19,709/- and interest u/s.28 of the LAA amounting to Rs.68,32,020/- on compulsory acquisition from The Special Land Acquisition Officer (MIW), Latur against the land situated at Village Khadgaon, Tq. Latur. In the column of exempt income in the return, the assessee showed figures of total interest at Rs.68,32,020/- and agriculture income at Rs.2,37,900/-. On being called upon to explain as to why the interest was not shown separately as income u/s.56(2)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) Act, the assessee made certain submissions which did not find favour with the Assessing Officer (AO). Treating 50% of the interest income as deductible in terms of section 57(iv), the AO added net interest income of Rs.34,16,010/- u/s. 56(2)(viii) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), relying on certain decisions, which we will advert to in the later part of the order, jettisoned the claim of the assessee thereby approving the view of the AO in bringing to tax the interest income u/s.56(2)(viii) of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has approached the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the sides through virtual court and cogitated over the relevant material on record. Indisputably, the amount of net interest income computed by the AO u/s.56(2)(viii) of the Act pertains to section 28 of the LAA. The assessee treated such amount as part of the enhanced compensation of land and claimed the same as exempt from tax on the ground that the land itself was agricultural. To buttress the contention that interest 6 M.A.Nos.321 to 323 & 329/PUN./2022 u/s 28 of the LAA is a part of compensation and hence not chargeable to tax, the ld. AR chiefly relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC) before the Tribunal in which it has been held that interest u/s.28 under The Land Acquisition Act, is to be taxed as part of consideration on receipt basis. This judgment was delivered on 16-07-2009. The Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01-04-2010 inserted clause (viii) to section 56(2) providing that: “income by way of interest received on compensation or on enhanced compensation referred to in sub-section (1) of section 145B” shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Income from other sources”. Section 145B(1) provides that: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 145, the interest received by an assessee on any compensation or on enhanced compensation, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which it is received”. Thus it is palpable that post the decision in Ghanshyam (supra), a statutory amendment has been carried out providing that income by way of interest received on compensation or on enhanced compensation shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Income from other sources”. 5. The question of taxability of interest received u/s 28 of the LAA came up for consideration before Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh Vs. Union of India (2016) 237 Taxman 0116 (P&H). It noted 7 M.A.Nos.321 to 323 & 329/PUN./2022 another judgment of three Judges of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551(SC) following Dr. Shamlal Narula vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 151 (SC) holding that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. After considering all the available relevant material including the judgment in Ghanshyam (HUF) (Supra) and also the statutory amendments carried out w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11, the Hon’ble High Court, vide its judgment dated 14.01.2014, decided this issue in favour of the Revenue by holding that interest u/s.28 of LAA was chargeable to tax u/s. 56(2)(viii) of the Act. The SLP filed against the judgment in the case of Manjet Singh Vs. Union of India has since been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 18-12- 2014 (SLP No. 34642 of 2014) holding that “Heard ld. Counsel for the petitioners and perused the relevant material. We do not find any legal and valid ground for interference. The special leave petitions are dismissed.” 6. Question of deduction of tax at source on interest u/s 28 of the LAA once again came up for consideration before the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in a batch of 13 petitions with the lead case of Shivajirao S/o Dnyanoba Ghanwat & Ors. VS. The State of Maharashatra & Ors. (WP No. 5402 of 2013). The petitioners contended that the tax was deducted at source on the entire amount of compensation awarded in Land Acquisition proceedings, including the interest u/s 28 of the Land 8 M.A.Nos.321 to 323 & 329/PUN./2022 Acquisition Act, which was not deductible in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra). Per contra, the Respondent made out a case that tax at source was rightly deductible as there was no difference between the interest granted u/s 28 and 34 of the LAA. This view was bolstered on the basis of an earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bikram Singh (supra) 224 ITR 551 (SC). The Hon’ble Bombay High Court, vide its judgment dated 27.08.2013 (copy at pages 69 onwards of the assessee’s paper book), recorded the petitioner’s contention in para 8 and that of the respondent in paras 3 read with 4. In para 5 of the judgment, their Lordships found that: ‘Section 34 casts obligation upon Collector to pay interest after compensation is worked out. Section 28 puts similar obligation upon the Court when the Court finds that the compensation awarded under section 11 was inadequate. Therefore, there is no change in nature of interest either u/s.28 or section 34. Even if court hikes compensation for land and interest is awarded under Section 28 of the Act, upon such increased compensation, in the light of larger Bench judgment, the Department and Disbursing Authorities are bound to effect deduction of TDS’. On the interplay between the Hon’ble Apex Court judgments in Ghanshyam (supra) & Bikram Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in para 4 found the: `issue to be squarely covered by the larger Bench judgment of the Apex court’ in Bikram Singh (supra). Then it noted in para 9 of the judgment that: “We 9 M.A.Nos.321 to 323 & 329/PUN./2022 have perused para 24 and 25 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ghanshyam (supra). We find that the Hon’ble Apex Court there, was not called upon to look into the Larger Bench judgment delivered earlier in case of Bikram Singh (supra). In para 7, the Hon’ble Larger Bench has found that the interest paid u/s.28 is not by way of any charge on compensation determined u/s.23(1). We, therefore, with respect, follow the larger Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court”. Thus it is plentifully lucid that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has categorically held that interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is chargeable to tax. 7. The ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Curt has not correctly appreciated the legal position inasmuch as the decision in the case of Ghanshyam (supra) was binding and ought to have been followed. He unsuccessfully tried to convince the Tribunal that the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court should not be preferred over certain other decisions in favour of the assessee. We find that in certain decisions, the issue has been decided in assessee’s favour. Notwithstanding any contrary view expressed by a non-jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court, the Tribunal, being an authority inferior in hierarchy to its jurisdictional High Court, is bound by the verdict of its superior Hon’ble High Court and cannot read, consider or understand the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a way different from 10 M.A.Nos.321 to 323 & 329/PUN./2022 the one understood by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court unless such a view has been subsequently reversed/modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. The ld. AR then submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. Hari Siingh and others (2018) 302 CTR 0458 (SC) has considered a similar issue and decided the same in favour of the assessee. It was then contended that since the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court was rendered prior to that of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Singh and others (supra), the latter should be followed in preference to the former. 9. We are unable to find any relevance of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Singh and others (supra), insofar as the issue under consideration is concerned. In that case, the Land Acquisition Collector deducted tax at source from compensation on account of compulsory acquisition of land and deposited the same with the exchequer. A writ petition was filed in the High court urging that no deduction of tax at source was permissible in view of the provisions of section 194LA of the I.T. Act, since the land which was acquired was agricultural land and this provision categorically mentions that in respect of agricultural land, tax at source was not to be deducted. The Hon’ble High Court directed the Income-tax Department to refund the amount to the collector and held: “that the Collector will determine whether the compensation paid is for property other than the agricultural land or 11 M.A.Nos.321 to 323 & 329/PUN./2022 otherwise and whether deduction of tax at source was permissible under other provisions of law.....”. Aggrieved thereby, the Revenue approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court pleading that the matter should have been remitted to the AO for deciding the nature of land acquired and not the Collector as it was the AO who was to come to the conclusion whether land was agricultural or not. Accepting the contention on behalf of the Revenue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the claimant should approach the concerned AO and raise the issue that no tax was payable on compensation/enhanced compensation which was received by them as their land was agricultural land. It was further observed that, while determining as to whether the compensation paid was for agricultural land or not, the AO will keep in mind the provisions of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and the law laid down by this Court in CIT, Faridabad Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) in order to ascertain whether the interest given under the said provision amounts to compensation or not. It is abundantly clear that the judgment in the case of Hari Singh and others (supra) is based an altogether different factual matrix in which the question was as to whether it was the Collector or the AO who will decide as to whether any tax was payable on compensation/enhanced compensation. This issue came to be decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court by holding that the AO was the competent authority. There is no adjudication on the point as to whether interest u/s.28 of the Land Acquisition Act is chargeable to tax separately or part of enhanced 12 M.A.Nos.321 to 323 & 329/PUN./2022 compensation. There is a simple direction to the AO to consider this aspect of the matter. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is manifest that the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court holding that interest u/s.28 under the LAA is chargeable to tax, is intact and has not been disturbed in any manner by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Singh and others (supra). On a specific query, the ld. AR could not point out as to whether the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Shivajirao (supra) has been reversed or modified in any manner by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Respectfully following the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Shivajirao (supra) and the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Manjeet Singh (supra) along with the statutory amendment carried out to section 56(2) inserting clause (viii) w.e.f. 01- 04-2010, it is overt that the ld. CIT(A) has taken an unexceptionable view in the matter pertaining to the A.Y. 2013-14. We, therefore, uphold the same. This ground is not allowed.” 5. We have heard the foregoing vehement rival contentions. It transpires that the instant issue of taxability of the assessee’s interest income received under section 28 of the Act is covered in assessee’s favour as per the hon’ble high court’s Bombay bench holding that the same is not taxable under section 56(2)(viii) of the Act as against the Revenue’s contentions that the Aurangabad 13 M.A.Nos.321 to 323 & 329/PUN./2022 bench of the very hon’ble jurisdictional high court has taken a divergent view against the taxpayer in Shivajirao and Others Vs. State Writ Petition No.5042/2013 dated 27.08.2013(supra). 6. Faced with the situation, we are of the opinion that it is the Bombay and not Aurangabad bench of the hon’ble jurisdictional high court whose decision would prevail in the given facts and circumstances as the assessee, his land/capital asset forming subject matter of compulsory acquisition as well as “situs” of the Assessing Officer who has framed assessment before us dated 28.11.2017, are covered within its territorial jurisdiction notified from time to time. We thus quote PCIT Vs. ABC Paper Limited [2022] 447 ITR 1 (SC) and decide the instant sole substantive ground as well as the main appeal is assessee’s favour. Ordered accordingly.” 2.1. Mr. Jasnani lastly submitted that the Assessing Officer(s) herein had framed the respective assessments dated 22.02.2016, 18.02.2016, 18.02.2016 and 18.02.2016, taxpayer-wise, respectively, falling within the jurisdiction of Aurangabad bench of hon’ble jurisdictional high court which has adjudicated the very issue in Revenue’s favour (supra). 3. Mr. Sharad Shah’s case before us is that the Revenue’s instant miscellaneous application in fact amount to 14 M.A.Nos.321 to 323 & 329/PUN./2022 review of our earlier order which is not permissible in law u/s.254(2) of the Act. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing vehement rival submissions and find no merit in assessee’s arguments. We make it clear that our impugned common order has nowhere considered the above stated statutory provisions u/s.56(2)(viii) r.w.s.57(iv) of the Act. This is indeed coupled with the fact that hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s Aurangabad bench has already held that interest on compensation covered u/s.28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would be taxable u/s.56(2)(viii) of the Act (supra). We make it clear that learned counsel representing assessee had placed vehement reliance on the hon’ble Bombay high court’s decisions (supra) that such an interest income is not taxable. The fact however remains that the Assessing Officer had framed his assessments at Latur and therefore, the assessees’ hon’ble jurisdictional high court is to be treated as Aurangabad bench only as per CIT vs. ABC Papers Limited [2022] 447 ITR 1 (SC). In view of the foregoing detailed discussion, we hold that our common impugned order dated 11.09.2019 deserves to be recalled since there is an apparent error on record in light of hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in the case of ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., (supra). We order accordingly and further conclude as a necessary consequence that these four 15 M.A.Nos.321 to 323 & 329/PUN./2022 assessees’ main appeals ITA.Nos. 2585, 2580, 2582 & 2583/PUN./2016 respectively, deserve to be dismissed on merits. We order necessary rectification to this effect. Ordered accordingly. 5. To sum-up, these Revenue’s four miscellaneous applications M.A.Nos.321 to 323 & 329/PUN./2022 are allowed and the assessees’ corresponding as many main appeals ITA.Nos.2585, 2580, 2582 & 2583/PUN./2016 respectively, are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23.08.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [GD PADMAHSHALI] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 23 rd August, 2023 VBP/- Copy to 1. The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad 4. The Pr. CIT-2, Aurangabad 5. D.R. ITAT, Pune “B” Bench, Pune 6. Guard File. //By Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.