9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1032X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act") followed by notification dated 11.2.2009 under Section 6 of the Act acquired the said land for the development of residential and commercial Sectors 4, 5 7A (Part), Fatehabad. Respondent No.4 announced the award on 10.2.2011. Due to dispute between the petitioners and respondents No.9 to 23, a reference under Section 30 of the Act was filed before respondent No.4 who referred the same to the Additional District Judge, Fatehabad. The reference court ordered for deposit of the award amount in a fixed deposit and the said amount was deposited with respondent No.5 vide FDR dated 8.6.2011 (Annexure P-1). The reference court vide award dated 13.3.2014 (Annexure P-2) held that respondents No.9 to 23 were not entitled to any apportionment of the award money. The reference court vide order dated 21.10.2014 (Annexure P-3) ordered for release of the FDR, Annexure P-1, in favour of the petitioners. Respondent No.5 while making the payment to the petitioners deducted TDS amounting to Rs. 6,65,250/- and issued the certificates dated 21.1.2015 (Annexures P-4 to P-8, respectively). Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d compensation, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be the income of the year in which it is received." The cumulative effect of the aforesaid amendments would be that the interest component on the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation would be exigible to tax in the year of receipt irrespective of the method of accounting being employed by the assessee. 7. Adverting to the judgment of the Apex Court in Ghanshyam's case (supra) on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioners, it may be noticed that a Division Bench of this Court in Manjeet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh v. Union of India and others, CWP No. 15506 of 2013 decided on 14.1.2014 to which one of us (Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.) was a member had dealt with the similar issue holding that the petitioners cannot derive any benefit from Ghanshyam's case (supra) with the following observations:- "12. Adverting to the case law on the subject, inevitably, reference is made to the judgment by the three Judges bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Shamlal Narula v. CIT, [1964] 53 ITR 151, which had considered the issue regarding award of interest under the 1894 Act. Interest un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t" laid down by the Privy Council and all other cases and had held at page 158 as under: "In a case where title passes to the State, the statutory interest provided thereafter can only be regarded either as representing the profit which the owner of the land might have made if he had the use of the money or the loss he suffered because he had not that use. In no sense of the term can it be described as damages or compensation for the owner's right to retain possession, for he has no right to retain possession after possession was taken under Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income-tax Act." This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the case of TMK Govindaraju Chetty vs. Commissioner of Incometax, Madras [66 ITR 465], Rama Rai & Ors. vs. CIT, Andhra Pradesh [181 ITR 400] and K.S. Krishna Rao vs. CIT, A.P. [181 ITR 408]. Thus by a catena of judicial pronouncements, it is settled law that the interest received on delayed payment of the comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t from compensation. However, interest paid on the excess amount under Section 28 of the 1894 Act depends upon a claim by the person whose land is acquired whereas interest under Section 34 is for delay in making payment. This vital difference needs to be kept in mind in deciding this matter. Interest under Section 28 is part of the amount of compensation whereas interest under Section 34 is only for delay in making payment after the compensation amount is determined. Interest under Section 28 is a part of the enhanced value of the land which is not the case in the matter of payment of interest under Section 34." 17. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court in Dr. Sham Lal Narula, T.N.K.Govindaraja Chetty, Amarjit Singh, Sunder, Bikram Singh's cases (supra), Rama Bai vs. CIT (1990) 181 ITR 400 and K.S.Krishna Rao v. CIT, (1990) 181 ITR 408, the assessee cannot derive any benefit from the aforesaid observations quoted above." 8. Appeal carried to the Apex Court by the assessee therein by way of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 34642 of 2014 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 18.12.2014 with the following order:- "Heard learned counsel for the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
