TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Tribunal and decide this question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that 50 per cent. of the amount withdrawn from the High Court was liable to tax in the assessment year in which it was withdrawn , In the present case, the High Court had not ordered for furnishing any security for withdrawing 50 per cent. of the deposited amount. We 40 not think that receiving the amounts by virtue of an interim order, in a pending appeal, on furnishing security or without furnishing security would make any difference. Because the ultimate results would be the same. Had the Government succeeded in the appeal, the assessee had to pay back the amounts he had drawn. It is only in order to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thus, questions Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the assessee and question No.3 is answered in favour of the Revenue. The reference is answered accordingly. - Bilal Nazki And Nooty Ramamohana Rao JJ. For the Assessee : C. Kodanda Ram For the Commissioner : J. V. Prasad JUDGMENT 1. Bilal Nazki J. The brief facts of the case are : 2. The land belonging to the assessee, a Hindu undivided family (HUF), was acquired by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act during 1981-82. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per acre. Not satisfied with the award, the assessee sought a reference and the civil court enhanced the compensatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the High Court. The High Court, pending final disposal of the appeal, granted stay of execution of the decree, on condition of the State depositing enhanced compensation, calculated at the rate of Rs. 32 per square yard, together with costs and interest. On such deposit, the claimant-assessee was permitted to withdraw half of the deposited amount without furnishing any security and the other half on furnishing security. By virtue of the said order, the assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 41.48 lakhs in total. He claimed before the Assessing Officer that the additional compensation could not be brought to tax for the assessment year 1992-93 in which it was withdrawn as the matter was still pending before the High Court. The Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entitled to exemption under section 54E of the Income- tax Act for investing the net consideration in the UTI Capital Gains Scheme, 1983 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that 50 per cent. of the amount with drawn from the High Court without furnishing security constitutes the income liable to tax for the relevant assessment year ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the exemption under section 54B of the Income-tax Act is available only to an 'individual' ? 6. The first question was framed at the behest of the Revenue and the second and the third questions were framed at the behest of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid at the rate of Rs. 68 per square yard. In this connection, he refers to a particular paragraph being paragraph 24 in the order of the Tribunal. The pleadings of A. S. No. 999 of 1990 are not before us. It is true that the Tribunal has stated in its order that the Government had filed the appeal and had stated in the memo of appeal that they wanted the compensation to be fixed at Rs. 50 per square yard, but at the same time, the Tribunal itself has stated : The Government itself was not aggrieved by the compensation enhanced up to Rs. 50 per square yard. It looks as though it was dis puting the compensation over and above Rs. 50 per square yard, i.e., in respect of Rs. 18 per square yard. That appears to be the reason why in the stay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause the ultimate results would be the same. Had the Government succeeded in the appeal, the assessee had to pay back the amounts he had drawn. It is only in order to secure the refund that courts insist on furnishing the security. But furnishing of security is nowhere connected with the entitlement of the person who receives the amounts. Entitlement of amounts, in such cases, is only decided by the courts at the time the matter is finally settled. For these reasons, we feel that the question is covered by the Supreme Court judgment referred to above and is answered accordingly in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 11. Question No. 3 : The assessee wanted benefit under section 54B of the Act, as according to the assessee the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
