TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontroversy, it is essential that it is established beyond doubt as to who were the actual recipients of the compensation/interest and in whose hands would this amount be assessed. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the file to the office of the Assessing Officer with the direction to examine the issue afresh after determining as to who was the recipient of the compensation/interest i.e. whether the assessee was the recipient or whether it was the HUF who had received the compensation/interest. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 6055/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 26-4-2018 - SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubject to deduction u/s 57(iv) of the Act. The Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 57(iv) r/w sections 56(viii) and 145A(b) and assessed 50% of ₹ 1,26,01,892/- as being taxable income and made the addition of ₹ 64,39,705/-. This addition, on appeal, was upheld by the Ld. CIT (Appeals). 2.1 Now the assessee has approached the ITAT and has challenged the impugned order by raising the following grounds of appeal:- 1. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) -26, New Delhi (hereinafter called CIT (A) for the sake of brevity) erred in holding that the acquired land of the assessee was not an agricultural land. 2. That on the facts and in the circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the purpose of insertion of Section 56(2)(viii) read with Section 145A (b) was to provide that interest will be deemed to be income of the year in which it is received. 3.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that in two subsequent decisions namely CIT V. Ghanshvam (HUF) reported in 315 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT V. Govindbhai Mamaiya reported in 367 ITR 498 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is not interest per-se but is part of the amount of enhanced compensation. The ld. AR submitted that, accordingly, the interest on enhanced compensation not being interest in view of the Supreme Court decisions being part of enhanced compensation cannot be said to be covered by the mischief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Additional District Judge (page 19 of PB). 3.3 The Ld. AR also submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) did not appreciate that even if the land was a capital asset in view of the provisions of Section 2(14)(iii)(b), capital gains accruing on the acquisition of such land was exempt u/s 10(37) of the Act as already held by the ITO. 3.4 As an alternate plea, the Ld. AR also submitted that the impugned interest did not accrue to the assessee in his individual capacity but had accrued to the HUF constituted by the assessee, his wife and his four sons. It was submitted that this aspect had not been considered by any of the lower authorities and, therefore, the issue needed be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for making proper inquiry an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee. However, as adjudication of this issue is germane to the entire controversy, it is essential that it is established beyond doubt as to who were the actual recipients of the compensation/interest and in whose hands would this amount be assessed. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the file to the office of the Assessing Officer with the direction to examine the issue afresh after determining as to who was the recipient of the compensation/interest i.e. whether the assessee was the recipient or whether it was the HUF who had received the compensation/interest. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall provide due opportunity to the assessee to present its case. 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
