THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. SRI SURESCHANDRA MAHAGOANKAR

ITA/13/2007

AI Insights

The case revolves around the compensation received from the acquisition of land by the Karnataka Electricity Board (KEB) for a power station. The land, owned by the Hindu Undivided Family of Mohanchandra Mahagoankar, was compensated at a rate determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. The compensation was initially assessed as belonging to Sureschandra Mahagoankar individually, leading to an appeal by the Revenue after the first appellate authority reclassified the compensation as belonging to the joint family. The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the findings of the lower appellate authority and the fact that the compensation was for the joint family, not the individual Kartha.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 729159 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: I.T. Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: A SHANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: M THIRUMALESH
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Compensation; Income tax appeal; Joint family; Land Acquisition
• Section: 260A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 1st day of April, 2013 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MANOHAR ITA No. 13 OF 2007 BETWEEN: 1 The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle – 1 Gulbarga 2 The Commissioner of Income Tax Aayakar Bhavan Sedam Road Gulbarga …Appellants (By Sri M. Thirumalesh, Advocate) AND: Sri Sureschandra Mahagoankar No.1-18, Mahagagoankar Bldg 2 Vivekandanagar Gulbarga …Respondent (By Sri A. Shankar, Advocate) This ITA filed under Section 260A of I.T. Act 1961 arising out of order dated 17-07-2006 passed in ITA No. 1783/Bang/2004 for the Assessment year 1992-93, praying to (i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein; (ii) allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT Bangalore Bench-A in ITA No. 1783/Bang/2004 dated 17-07- 2006 and confirm the Assessment Order passed by the Assessment Officer. This ITA coming on for hearing this day, N. KUMAR J., delivered the following: J U D G M E N T The Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal holding that the property belongs to the joint family and not to the kartha in his individual capacity and therefore the lower appellate authority was justified in not granting the relief to the assessee, as such it does not call for any interference. 3 2. The land bearing Sy.No.19/30 measuring 17 acres 19 guntas situate in Doddapura Village, Gulbarga, was acquired by the Karnataka Electricity Board (KEB) for installation of Power Station. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value at Rs.17,800-00 per acre. The KEB paid the compensation to the Sureshchandra Mahagoankar, the name of the person in whose name the acquisition notification was issued. On receipt of the said amount, it was invested in fixed deposits in the name of himself, his wife and children on various dates. The assessment order came to be passed holding that the said amount was received by the assessee in his individual capacity and it cannot be treated as amount received by the Hindu Undivided Family of Mohanchandra Mahagoankar. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The first appellate authority set aside the order of the Assessing 4 Authority and held that the said amount belongs to the joint family and its members and gave the relief to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has preferred this appeal. This appeal relates to the assessment year 1992-93. In fact, for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1993-94, identical orders have been passed. The Revenue challenged the said order before this Court which, came to be dismissed. 5. The question whether the compensation amount exclusively belongs to the kathedar, the Kartha of the family or does it belongs to the joint family and its members, is purely a question of fact. Two fact finding authorities have recorded concurrent finding. Already the appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the said finding has been negated by this Court and we do not find any justification to entertain this appeal against the concurrent finding of fact. No substantial question 5 of law do arise for consideration in this appeal. No merits. Dismissed. (Sd/-) JUDGE (Sd/-) JUDGE ksp/- "