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

2018 (6) TMI 1319

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nue is mainly aggrieved by deletion of penalty of Rs. 10,50,380/- on account of addition made on enhanced compensation on acquisition of land. 2. The facts in brief are that an AIR information was received that the assessee has invested an amount of Rs. 45,06,250/- in the Bonds and the source of such investment requires examination. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee submitted that during the year under consideration he has received sum of Rs. 45,46,473/- as enhanced compensation of land acquired by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. In the revised computation of income filed before the Assessing Officer under the head 'capital gain' assessee has claimed exemption in the following manner: Compensation amount received Rs.45,46, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d such revised computation cannot be entertained, because assessee was required to file revised return u/s.139(5) which time has also elapsed. Accordingly, he denied the claim of exemption of Long Term Capital Gain and taxed the entire receipt of Rs. 45,46,473/-. 3. In the first appeal, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. In the penalty proceedings, in response to show cause notice, the assessee submitted that the entire receipts as well as the investment was duly disclosed in the Income Tax Return and there can be no case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, the Assessing Officer held that assessee was liable for penalty and accordingly imposed penalty of Rs. 10,50,380/-. 3. Before the ld. CIT (A), the assess .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g judgments of various High Courts on the issue of year of taxability of compensation and enhanced compensation. Thus, following ratio laid down by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, he deleted the penalty. 5. Before us, learned DR strongly relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the enhanced compensation should have been offered for the taxation by the assessee and the claim made by the assessee for seeking exemption from Long Term Capital Gain was not in accordance with law as it was not claimed in the revised return of income and therefore, penalty has rightly been levied by the Assessing Officer. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A) and also poin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r dated 12.12.2008 had stayed the operation of the impugned award subject to the condition that 50% of the amount deposited be released by LAC to the assessee. Accordingly, on 03.02.2009, an amount of Rs. 1,36,39,418/- (being 50% of the amount deposited by the DMRC was released by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court order dated 12.12.2008) and 1/3rd share of the assessee of such compensation was determined at Rs. 45,46,473/- which was received by the assessee on 03.02.2009. This was on the basis of interim release order by the Hon'ble High Court. Later on such an interim order dated 12.12.2008 was made absolute during the pendency of the writ petition. At the time of finalizing the return of income for the year ending 31st March, 2009, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he revised computation that without prejudice claim was made. Under these facts, it cannot be held that, f irstly, at the time of filing of original return of income assessee's claim for non taxability of Long Term Capital Gain was not bona f ide as already a dispute was going on; and secondly, the investment in NABARD bonds was duly disclosed at the time of original return of income. Thus, it cannot be held that assessee has concealed any particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. We agree with the observation of the ld. CIT (A) that prior to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) there were many decisions of the Hon'ble High Court wherein the year of taxability of enh .....

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