Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2007 (2) TMI 186

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... reference and the civil court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 71,380 per acre. On appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,83,000 per acre. By virtue of the orders of the High Court, the assessee received additional compensation amounting to Rs. 15,26,135 and interest on the additional compensation amounting to Rs. 28,58,622 on April 9, 1991, and on receiving the amounts, he invested the entire additional compensation in the UTI Capital Gains Scheme of 1983, on October 1, 1991, i.e., within six months from the date of receipt of the additional compensation and sought exemption under section 54E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). The Assessing Officer denied this exemption on the ground that investment in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as still pending before the High Court. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee and the entire amount withdrawn by the assessee was brought to tax in the assessment year 1992-93. The first appellate authority also upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. On further appeal, the Tribunal held that 50 per cent. of the amount received by the assessee without furnishing security had to be treated as taxable income in the year in which it was withdrawn and excluded the other 50 per cent. of the amount received by the assessee, on furnishing security, from assessment in the year in which it was withdrawn. 4. Similarly, an extent of two acres of land owned by the assessee was acquired by the Government during 1992-93 and a comp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... questions were framed at the behest of the assessee. 7. Question No. 1 : This question is raised at the behest of the Revenue. We fail to understand how could the finding of the Tribunal be faulted. The assessee received the amounts in 1991-92. Admittedly, the amounts were deposited by the assessee, within six months from the date of its receipt, in the UTI Capital Gains Scheme, which is one of the units as specified asset mentioned in Explanation 1(c)(ii) to section 54E of the Act. Therefore, we agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and decide this question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 8. Question No. 2 : Coming to the second question whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that 50 per cent. of the amount w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ears to be the reason why in the stay petition (CMP No. 2849 of 1991), the Government sought for the stay of execution of the decree in so far as it relates to the enhancement of market value beyond Rs. 50 though it resiled from that stand at a later stage." 10. So even if such a stand had been taken by the Government, the Government has resiled from that stand, which makes it abundantly clear that the disputes between the parties were with regard to enhanced compensation. By an interim order, in appeal, the High Court allowed release of 50 per cent. of compensation without security. In our view, till the matter got finally decided by the High Court, the compensation could not be assessed and it could only be assessed in the year in which .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as according to the assessee the Hindu undivided family could also be an individual within the meaning of this section. But we agree with the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT v. G. K. Devarajulu [1991] 191 ITR 211 wherein it was held that in cases under section 54B of the Act, if persons other than individuals are held to be entitled to benefit then it would lead to absurd results and then "assessee or a parent of his" would be even related to a partnership concern or a company or an Hindu undivided family. By saying "assessee" and adding to it "or a parent of his" makes it abundantly clear that the benefit under section 54B of the Act would only be available to an individual and not to an Hindu undivided family. 12. In this case, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates