Sh. Nachhattar Singh, Ambala V. ITO, Ambala

MA 61/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6152 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Deemed to accrue or arise in india
• Section: 45(5); 56; 28

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.61/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 564/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. NACHHATTAR SINGH, AMBALA. S/O LATE SH. AJIT SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA PAN : CFNPS3590H M.A. NO.62/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 565/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. GURPINDER SINGH, AMBALA. S/O SH. HARDYAL SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA PAN : CFNPS3171N M.A. NO.63/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 566/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. HARBANS SINGH, AMBALA. S/O SH. CHARAN SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA PAN : BEQPS0788J M.A. NO.64/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 567/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. HARVINDER SINGH, AMBALA. S/O SH. NAIB SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA PAN : CGHPS8153F 2 M.A. NO.65/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 568/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. BALBIR SINGH, AMBALA. S/O SH. SHER SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA PAN : CFNPS2758K M.A. NO.66/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 569/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. BALDEV SINGH, AMBALA. S/O SH. JEEVAN SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : BRZPS4850H M.A. NO.67/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 570/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. BALWINDER SINGH, AMBALA. S/O SH. KESAR SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : BTSPS1970D M.A. NO.68/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 571/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. BALJIT SINGH, AMBALA. S/O LATE SH. RAJINDER SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : BGDPS9894Q M.A. NO.69/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 572/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. CHANDA SINGH, AMBALA. S/O SH. RAM KISHAN, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : AJNPM8021B 3 M.A. NO.70/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 573/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. DHARAM PAL, AMBALA. S/O SH. DEVA RAM, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : BBAPP8036P M.A. NO.71/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 574/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SMT. DAYAL KAUR, AMBALA. D/O SH. SAMPURAN SINGH, VILL. KHANPUR, AMBALA. PAN : BHAPK4597A M.A. NO.72/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 575/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SMT. GURMAIL KAUR, AMBALA. D/O LATE SH. RAJINDER SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : AZOPK6909K M.A. NO.73/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 576/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. GURNAM SINGH, AMBALA. S/O SH. HARDYAL SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : CFNPS3171N M.A. NO.74/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 577/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. AVTAR SINGH, AMBALA. S/O SH. KESAR SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : CFNPS3575Q 4 M.A. NO.75/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 578/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SMT. AMARJIT KAUR, AMBALA. W/O SH. HARPAL SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : BHNPK5645N M.A. NO.76/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 579/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. AJAIB SINGH, AMBALA. S/O SH. JARNAIL SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : CGHPS8065C M.A. NO.77/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 580/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SMT. AJMERO DEVI, AMBALA. W/O SH. SHRI RAM, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : ARKPD2472L M.A. NO.78/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 581/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. BALWINDER SINGH, AMBALA. S/O SH. NAIB SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : CGHPS7598L M.A. NO.79/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 582/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. JASWINDER SINGH, AMBALA. S/O SH. SHER SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : CFKPS7337P 5 M.A. NO.80/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 583/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SMT. MANTI DEVI, AMBALA. D/O SH. HANS RAJ, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : ARKPD2653F M.A. NO.81/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 584/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SMT. MANJIT KAUR, AMBALA. D/O SH. RAJINDER SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : AKNPK7578C M.A. NO.82/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 585/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V MS. NASEEB KAUR, AMBALA. D/O SH. MAAN SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : BHJPK6206K M.A. NO.83/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 586/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. NIRANJAN SINGH, AMBALA. S/O SH. HARDYAL SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : CHKPS0359F M.A. NO.84/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 587/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SMT. PARAMJIT SINGH, AMBALA. D/O LATE SH. MAAN SINGH, VPO SAUNDA, AMBALA. PAN : BHHPK8322C 6 M.A. NO.85/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 588/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, AMBALA. S/O LATE SH. RAJINDER SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : ATXPS0108H M.A. NO.86/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 589/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. RAJINDER SINGH, AMBALA. S/O SH. MAAN SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : AWYPS8232Q M.A. NO.87/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 590/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. RAJESH KUMAR PUNIA, AMBALA. S/O SH. TEK CHAND, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : BARPP7242K M.A. NO.88/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 591/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SMT. SHARDA DEVI, AMBALA. D/O SH. HAZARA SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : ARUPD2692N M.A. NO.89/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 592/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V MS. SURINDER KAUR, AMBALA. D/O SH. MAAN SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : BFYPK0305L 7 M.A. NO.90/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 593/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SMT. SWARNJIT KAUR, AMBALA. D/O SH. HARPAL SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : BIFPK8572C M.A. NO.91/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 594/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SMT. SANDEEP KAUR, AMBALA. D/O SH. DEVA RAM, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : BHNPK5923K M.A. NO.92/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 595/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. SUCHA SINGH, AMBALA. S/O SH. AJIT SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : CGHPS8058P M.A. NO.93/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 596/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. SURINDER SINGH, AMBALA. S/O SH. HARDYAL SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : AQIPS2856C M.A. NO.94/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 597/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SMT. TEJ KAUR, AMBALA. D/O SH. JOGINDER SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : BHNPK5912Q 8 M.A. NO.95/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 598/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. TEJA SINGH, AMBALA. S/O SH. JEEVAN SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : BQZPS3706B M.A. NO.96/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 599/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. VIJAY KUMAR, AMBALA. S/O SH. TEK CHAND, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : BHNPK5915K M.A. NO.97/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 600/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. MAHA SINGH, AMBALA. S/O SH. DALIP SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : CGHPS8055A M.A. NO.98/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 601/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, AMBALA. S/O SH. HARPAL SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : CFOPS1225L M.A. NO.99/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 602/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. PARVESH KUMAR, AMBALA. S/O SH. TEK CHAND, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : BHNPK5649A 9 M.A. NO.100/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 603/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. RAM SWAROOP, AMBALA. S/O SH. JIVAN SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : CBOPS6381R M.A. NO.101/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 604/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SMT. RAJINDER KAUR, AMBALA. D/O SH. SARUP SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : BHNPK5649A M.A. NO.102/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 605/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. KAMALJEET SINGH, AMBALA. S/O SH. HARPAL SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : CGHPS7584J M.A. NO.103/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 606/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SMT. JASBIR KAUR, AMBALA. D/O SH. DEVA RAM, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : BHNPK5925R M.A. NO.104/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 607/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SMT. KULDIP KAUR, AMBALA. D/O SH. HARPAL SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : BIFPK8606J 10 M.A. NO.105/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 608/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. KAKA SINGH, AMBALA. S/O SH. MAAN SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : CFYPS7278P M.A. NO.106/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 609/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. KARAMJIT SINGH, AMBALA. S/O SH. MAAN SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : CGBPS5241N M.A. NO.107/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 610/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. HARMESH SINGH AMBALA. S/O SH. PHOOL SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : CGRPS7668P M.A. NO.108/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 611/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SH. BALWINDER SINGH, AMBALA. S/O SH. HARBANS SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : AMOPS7180F & M.A. NO.109/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 612/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 3, V SMT. BIRMATI, AMBALA. D/O SH. HARI SINGH, VPO JANDLI, AMBALA. PAN : ARKPD2755L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) 11 APPELLANT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH, DR RESPONDENT BY : SH. ASHWANI KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 17.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.02.2018 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM: THE CAPTIONED MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE REVEN UE SEEK RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT DT.10 -08-2010 IN THE GROUP OF CASES WITH THE LEAD CASE BEINGITO, WARD-1, AMBALA VS. SHRI DEVI DAYAL, AMBALA CITY IN ITA NO. 561/CHD/2010. 2. THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED REQUESTS RECONSIDERA TION OF THE ORDER IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF THE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGHCOURT ON THE ISSUE IN APPEAL BEINGDETERMINATION OF ASSESSABILITY OF INTEREST RECEIVEDBY THE ASSESSEE AS PART OF THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION A GAINST THE ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE I TAT IN THE SAID JUDGMENT HADSTATED THAT THE INTEREST IN QUESTION WA S RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISI TION ACT, 1894 AND FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.GHANSHYAM HUF 315 ITR 1 (SC),HELD IT TO BE A PA RT OF THE COMPENSATION ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(37) OF T HE I.T. ACT. 3. THE REVENUE HAS NOW FILED THE PRESENT MISC. APPL ICATIONS BEFORE US STATING THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE PASSING OF THE AFORE SAID ORDER BY THE ITAT, THE HONBLE PUNJAB& HARYANA HIGH COURT HELD THE SA ID INTEREST, AWARDED BY COURT ON ENHANCED AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894, TO BE TAXABLE U/S 56 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN 12 SHORT 'THE ACT') AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ,I N THE CASE OF CIT, FARIDABAD VS. BIR SINGH HUF, BALLABHGARHIN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 209 OF 2004 , DT.27-10-10 . THE REVENUE HAS, THEREFORE, SOUGHT RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID S UBSEQUENT DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT THE ITAT HA D INCORRECTLY INTERPRETED THE JUDGEMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM HUF (SUPRA) AS HOLDING INTEREST RECEIVED U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT,1894TO PARTAKING THE CHARACTER OF COMPENSATION. LD.DR CONTENDED THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAD CORRECTLY INTERPR ETED THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF BIR SINGH(SUPRA) HOLDING THAT THE SAID IN COME WAS NOT IN THE NATURE OF COMPENSATION BUT WAS TAXABLE U/S 56 AS IN COME FROM OTHER SOURCES.OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE RELEVANT PAR AS OF THE ORDER AT PARA 23 ,25&26. . IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE SAID DECISION W AS RECONSIDERED AND REITERATED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJET SINGH (HUF), KARTA MANJEET SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA (2016) 65 TA XMANN.COM 160(P&H) AND AGAIN IN THE CASE OF SUNDER LAL AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA& OTHERS IN CWP NO. 20014 OF 2015 DATED 21.9.2015 5. THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT ALL THE ABOVE DECISION S WERE RENDERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGHCOURT SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECI SION OF THE APEX COURT IN GHANSHYAM HUF. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT WHILE T HE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN GHANSHYAM HUF WAS DATED 16.7.2009, THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISIONS WERE RENDERED IN 2010, 2014 A ND IN 2015. THE LD. DR STATED THAT IN VIEW OF THE SUBSEQUENT JUDGEMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL 13 HIGH COURT, ITAT DECISION HAD BECOME ERRONEOUS. REL IANCE WAS PLACED BY THE LD. DR ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HI GHCOURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SMT.ARUNA LUTHRA (2001) 252 ITR 76 FOR THE P ROPOSITION THAT A SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT OR SUPREME CO URT WAS MATERIAL ENOUGH TO HOLD THE ORDER ERRONEOUS SINCE IT LAID DO WN THE LAW AS IT ALWAYS EXISTED. AT THIS JUNCTURE, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DRE W OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGHCOUR T DECISION IN THE CASE OF BIR SINGH(HUF) (SUPRA) AND MANJET SINGH (SUPRA ), THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOVINDBHAI MAMAIYA (2014) 367 I TR 498(SC) HAD REITERATED THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN IN GHANSHYAM HUF (SUPRA). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT THE ITAT HAD RIGHTLY DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEAL FOLLOWING THE DECISI ON OF THE GHANSHYAM HUF (SUPRA) AND THERE WAS NO ERROR AS SUCH IN THE ORDER. 6. THE LD. DR COUNTERED BY STATING THAT THE DECISIO NS OF THE APEX COURTIN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOVINDBHAIMAMAIYA(SUP RA) WAS TO BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE QUESTION BEFORE IT, WHICH IT WAS P OINTED OUT TO US FROM PARA 3 OF THE ORDER AS RELATING TO THE ISSUE OF THE OF T AXABILITY OF THE INTEREST INCOME AND WHETHER THIS WAS TO BE ASSESSED TO TAX I N THE YEAR OF RECEIPT OR IT COULD BE SPREAD OVER THE PERIOD OF TIME. THE LD. DR STATED THAT THE JUDGMENTS ARE TO BE READ AS A WHOLE AND WORDS AND S ENTENCES ARE NOT TO BE PICKED UP FROM THE SAME AS LAID DOWN THE PROPOSITIO N OF LAW. IN THIS REGARD, LD. DR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION O F THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUN ENGINEERING WORKS PVT LTD.IN (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC). 14 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THIS JUNCTURE S TATED THAT IN VIEW OF THE CONFLICTING DECISIONS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT AND THE APEX COURT, THE ISSUE WAS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 254 OF THE ACT SINCE CLEARLY IT WAS A DEBATABLE ISSUE AND NOT AN ERROR WHICH WAS AP PARENT FROM RECORD WHICH COULD BE RECTIFIED IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS . 7. THE LD. DR RESPONDED TO THIS BY STATING THAT AS ON DATE, THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGHCOURT WAS CLEAR AND THER E WAS NO DEBATE AS SUCH ON THE ISSUE AND, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE ITAT ON THIS ACCOUNT WAS ERRONEOUS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RESPOND ED BY STATING THAT THE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUNDER LAL AND ANOTHER V S. UNION OF INDIA (SUPRA) HAD NOT TRAVELLED TO THE APEX COURT, WHILE IN THE CASE OF MANJIT SINGH, SLP FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN DISMISSE D BY THE APEX COURT WHICH CANNOT BE SAID TO BE THE LAYING DOWN THE LAW. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, CONTENDED, THAT SINCE THE APEX COURT HAD REITERATED THE PROPOSITION OF LAW VIS A VIS THE NATURE OF INTE REST RECEIVED ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AS PARTAKING THE CHARACTER OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION, IN TWO DECISIONS, IT WAS TO BE TREATED AS THE LAW OF THE LAND AND THE ITAT HAVING RENDERED ITS JUDGEM ENT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT, NO RECONSIDERATION TO T HE SAME WAS REQUIRED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE RS. WE FIND NO MERITIN THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATIONS. ADMITTEDLY , THE ITAT HAD GIVEN ITS JUDGEMENT ON THE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF INTERES T RECEIVED ON ENHANCEDCOMPENSATION FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN GHANSHYAM(HUF)(SUPRA).THE REVENUE HAS NOT DISPUTE D THAT THE DECISION OF THE ITAT WAS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE SAID DECISIO N. WHAT THE REVENUE HAS NOW CONTENDED IN THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION S BEFORE US IS THAT IN 15 VIEW OF THE SUBSEQUENT CONTRARY JUDGEMENTS OF THE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF BIR SINGH(SUPRA) AND MANJI T SINGH (SUPRA), ORDER OF THE ITAT HAD BECOME ERRONEOUS.HOWEVER AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECI SIONS OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THE APEX COURT HAD REIT ERATED THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN IN GHANSHYAM HUF (SUPRA),IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOVINDBHAIMAMAIYA (SUPRA) HOLDING AT PARA 7 OF IT S ORDER AS UNDER: 7. INSOFAR AS THE SECOND QUESTION IS CONCERNED, THA T IS ALSO COVERED BY ANOTHER JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD VS. GHANSHYAM (HUF) REPORTED IN (2009) 8 SCC 412, 6 ALBEIT, IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENU E. IN THAT CASE, THE COURT DREW DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE INTEREST EARNED UNDER SEC TION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AND THE INTEREST WHICH IS UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE SAI D ACT. THE COURT CLARIFIED THAT WHEREAS COMPENSATION GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE OF THE LAND ACQU IRED 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 WILL COVER IN TEREST AND IF SO, WHAT WOULD BE THE YEAR OF TAXABILITY. THE POSITION IN THIS RESPECT IS EXPL AINED IN PARAS 49 AND 50 OF THE JUDGMENT WHICH MAKE THE FOLLOWING 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 ACT THERE IS A PROV ISION FOR SOLATIUM WHICH ALSO REPRESENTS PART OF THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION. SIMIL ARLY, SECTION 28 EMPOWERS THE COURT IN ITS DISCRETION TO AWARD INTEREST ON THE EX CESS AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION OVER AND ABOVE WHAT IS AWARDED BY THE COLLECTOR. IT INCL UDES ADDITIONAL AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 23(1-A) AND SOLATIUM UNDER SECTION 23(2) OF THE SAID ACT. SECTION 28 OF THE 1894 ACT APPLIES ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE EXCESS AMOU NT DETERMINED BY THE COURT AFTER REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE 1894 ACT. IT DEPE NDS UPON THE CLAIM, UNLIKE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 WHICH DEPENDS ON UNDUE DE LAY 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 DISC USSED HEREINABOVE, WE HAVE TO GO BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1894 ACT WHICH AWARDS INT EREST BOTH AS AN ACCRETION IN THE VALUE OF THE LANDS ACQUIRED AND INTEREST FOR UNDUE DELAY. INTEREST UNDER SECTION 28 UNLIKE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 IS AN ACCRETION TO THE VALUE, HENCE 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 AMOU NT UNDER SECTION 23 (1-A) AND SOLATIUM UNDER SECTION 23(2) OF 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 EARNED UNDER SECTION 28, WHICH IS ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION, IS TREATED AS A ACCRETION TO THE VALU E AND THEREFORE, PART OF THE 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 T HIS QUESTION BY HOLDING THAT IT HAS TO BE TESTED ON RECEIPT BASIS, WHICH MEANS IT WOULD BE TA XED 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. HERE AGAIN, WE WOULD LIKE TO REPRODUCE THE DISCUSSION CONTAINED IN PARAS 53 AND 54 WHICH GIVES THE RATIONAL IN COMING TO THE SA ID CONCLUSION. PARAS 53 AND 54 READ AS UNDER: 53. THE SCHEME OF SECTION 45(5) OF THE 1961 ACT WA S INSERTED W.E.F. 1-4-1988 AS AN OVERRIDING PROVISION. AS STATED ABOVE, COMPENSATION UNDER THE L.A.ACT, 1894, ARISES AND IS PAYABLE IN MULTIPLE STAGES WHICH DOES NOT HA PPEN IN CASES OF TRANSFERS BY SALE, ETC. HENCE, THE LEGISLATURE HAD TO STEP IN AN D SAY THAT AS AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMANT IS IN RECEIPT OF ENHANCED COMPENS ATION IT SHALL BE TREATED AS 16 DEEMED INCOME AND TAXED ON RECEIPT BASIS. OUR ABO VE UNDERSTANDING IS SUPPORTED BY INSERTION OF CLAUSE (C) IN SECTION 45(5) W.E.F. 1-4-2004 AND SECTION 155(16) WHICH REFERS TO A SITUATION OF A SUBSEQUENT REDUCTI ON BY THE COURT, TRIBUNAL OR OTHER AUTHORITY AND RECOMPUTATION/ AMENDMENT OF THE ASSES SMENT ORDER. 54. SECTION 45 (5) READ AS A WHOLE [INCLUDING CLAUS E (C)] NOT ONLY DEALS WITH REWORKING AS URGED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BUT AL SO WITH THE CHANGE IN THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION (COMPUTATION) AND SINCE THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION/CONSIDERATION (INCLUDING INTEREST UNDE R SECTION 28 OF THE 1894 ACT) BECOMES PAYABLE/ PAID UNDER THE 1894 ACT AT DIFFERE NT STAGES, THE RECEIPT OF SUCH ENHANCED COMPENSATION/ CONSIDERATION IS TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT, IF ANY, UNDER SECTION 155(16) OF THE 19 61 ACT, LATER ON. HENCE, THE YEAR IN WHICH ENHANCED COMPENSATION IS RECEIVED IS THE Y EAR OF TAXABILITY. CONSEQUENTLY, EVEN IN CASES WHERE PENDING APPEAL, THE COURT/TRIBU NAL/AUTHORITY BEFORE WHICH APPEAL IS PENDING, PERMITS THE CLAIMANT TO WITHDRAW AGAINST SECURITY OR OTHERWISE THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION (WHICH IS IN DISPUTE), THE SA ME IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED UNDER SECTION 45(5) OF THE 1961 ACT. THIS IS THE SCHEME O F SECTION 45(5) AND SECTION 155(16) OF THE 1961 ACT. WE MAY CLARIFY THAT EVEN B EFORE THE INSERTION OF SECTION 45(5)(C) AND SECTION 155(16) W.E.F. 1-4-2004, THE R ECEIPT OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 45(5)(B) WAS TAXABLE IN THE YEAR OF R ECEIPT WHICH IS ONLY REINFORCED BY INSERTION OF CLAUSE (C) BECAUSE THE RIGHT TO RECEIV E PAYMENT UNDER THE 1894 ACT IS NOT IN DOUBT. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ALLOW THESE APPEALS IN PART AND SET ASIDE THAT PORTION OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT WHEREBY SPREAD OVER OF THE INTEREST RECEIVED UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE 1894 ACT, ON THE ENHANCED I NCOME IS ALLOWED WITH THE DIRECTION THAT IT WOULD BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH INTERES T ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION WAS RECEIVED. FURTHER WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.DR THAT THE SAID DECISION IS OF NO ASSISTANCE TO THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE AFORESAID CASE WAS DIFFE RENT FROM THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE AND RELATED TO YEAR OF TAXABILITY OF I NTEREST RECEIVED AS PART OF COMPENSATION. WE FIND THAT THE QUESTION BEFORE THE APEX COURT BESIDES THE YEAR OF TAXABILITY OF THE INTEREST WAS ALSO REGARDI NG THE ASSESSABILITY OF THE SAME TO TAX . THE SAME IS EVIDENT FROM PARA 3 OF T HE ORDER WHICH STATES AS UNDER: 3.THE RESPONDENTS FILED THEIR RETURN OF INCOME FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEARS CLAIMING THE STATUS OF 'INDIVIDUAL'. TWO QUESTIONS AROSE FOR CON SIDERATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ONE WAS AS TO WHETHER THESE THREE BROTHERS COULD FI LE SEPARATE RETURNS CLAIMING THE STATUS OF THE 'INDIVIDUAL' OR THEY WERE TO BE TREATED AS ' ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS' (AOP). SECOND QUESTION WAS REGARDING THE TAXABILITY OF THE INTERE ST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND THIS INTEREST WHICH WAS RECEIVED IN A PARTICULAR YEAR WA S TO BE ASSESSED IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT OR IT COULD BE SPREAD OVER THE PERIOD OF TIME. WE THEREFORE DISMISS THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LD.DR. 17 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE SETTLED POSITON OF LAW ON THE ISSUE IN APPEAL ,AS ON DATE, IS THAT AS LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF GHANSHY AM HUF (SUPRA) AND REITERATED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOVINDBHAI MAMAI YA (SUPRA).THE ITAT HAVING FOLLOWED THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN IN THEAFO RESAID DECISIONS WHILE RENDERING ITS JUDGEMENT, THEREFORE, THERE IS CLEARL Y NO ERROR IN THE SAID ORDER. EVEN OTHERWISE, POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL U/S 254 OF T HE ACT ARE VERY LIMITED AND ARE RESTRICTED TO RECTIFYING ONLY APPARENT ERR ORS AND IT HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW.THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS RAMESH ELECTRIC AND TRADING CO. 1993 203 ITR 497 (BOM.), WHILE RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF T. S. BALARAM, ITO V. VOLKART BROTHERS [1971] 82 ITR 50 AND FURTHER RELYING UPON THE DECISIONS OF THE VARIOUS H IGH COURTS HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN THE M ISTAKE WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED IS AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT, WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AND NOT A MISTAKE WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE ESTABLISH ED BY ARGUMENTS AND A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. 9. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AND THE LEGAL POSITION AS STATED ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE PRESENT MISC .APPLICATIONS AND THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY HEREBY DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE H EREBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/02/2018. 18 SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 07.02.2018 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR