TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 356X 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 previous year in which it is received . Thus it is palpable that post the decision in Ghanshyam (supra), a statutory amendment has been carried out providing that income by way of interest received on compensation or on enhanced compensation shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head Income from other sources . Interest u/s.28 under the LAA is chargeable to tax, is intact and has not been disturbed in any manner by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Singh and others [ 2017 (11) TMI 923 - SUPREME COURT] - Respectfully following judgment of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in Manjeet Singh [ 2015 (12) TMI 1123 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT] along with the statutory amendment carried out to section 56(2) inserting clause (viii) w.e.f. 01-04-2010, it is overt that the ld. CIT(A) has taken an unexceptionable view in the matter pertaining to the A.Y. 2013-14. We, therefore, uphold the same. This ground is not allowed. Addition as long term capital gain on acquisition of land - HELD THAT:- There is complete contrast in the version of the AO and the assessee. Whereas the case of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), relying on certain decisions, which we will advert to in the later part of the order, jettisoned the claim of the assessee thereby approving the view of the AO in bringing to tax the interest income u/s.56(2)(viii) of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has approached the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the sides through virtual court and cogitated over the relevant material on record. Indisputably, the amount of net interest income computed by the AO u/s.56(2)(viii) of the Act pertains to section 28 of the LAA. The assessee treated such amount as part of the enhanced compensation of land and claimed the same as exempt from tax on the ground that the land itself was agricultural. To buttress the contention that interest u/s 28 of the LAA is a part of compensation and hence not chargeable to tax, the ld. AR chiefly relied on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC) before the Tribunal in which it has been held that interest u/s.28 under The Land Acquisition Act, is to be taxed as part of consideration on receipt basis. This judgment was delivered on 16-07-2009. The Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013). The petitioners contended that the tax was deducted at source on the entire amount of compensation awarded in Land Acquisition proceedings, including the interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was not deductible in the light of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra). Per contra, the Respondent made out a case that tax at source was rightly deductible as there was no difference between the interest granted u/s 28 and 34 of the LAA. This view was bolstered on the basis of an earlier judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Bikram Singh (supra) 224 ITR 551 (SC). The Hon ble Bombay High Court, vide its judgment dated 27.08.2013 (copy at pages 69 onwards of the assessee s paper book), recorded the petitioner s contention in para 8 and that of the respondent in paras 3 read with 4. In para 5 of the judgment, their Lordships found that: Section 34 casts obligation upon Collector to pay interest after compensation is worked out. Section 28 puts similar obligation upon the Court when the Court finds that the compensation awarded under section 11 was inadequate. Therefore, there is no change in nature of interest either u/s.28 or section 34. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same in favour of the assessee. It was then contended that since the judgment of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court was rendered prior to that of Hon ble Supreme Court in Hari Singh and others (supra), the latter should be followed in preference to the former. 9. We are unable to find any relevance of the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in Hari Singh and others (supra), insofar as the issue under consideration is concerned. In that case, the Land Acquisition Collector deducted tax at source from compensation on account of compulsory acquisition of land and deposited the same with the exchequer. A writ petition was filed in the High court urging that no deduction of tax at source was permissible in view of the provisions of section 194LA of the I.T. Act, since the land which was acquired was agricultural land and this provision categorically mentions that in respect of agricultural land, tax at source was not to be deducted. The Hon ble High Court directed the Income-tax Department to refund the amount to the collector and held: that the Collector will determine whether the compensation paid is for property other than the agricultural land or otherwise and whether deduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to section 56(2) inserting clause (viii) w.e.f. 01-04-2010, it is overt that the ld. CIT(A) has taken an unexceptionable view in the matter pertaining to the A.Y. 2013-14. We, therefore, uphold the same. This ground is not allowed. 11. The only other issue which survives in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of ₹ 38,58,365/- as long term capital gain on acquisition of land. 12. The facts anent to this issue are that the assessee received a sum of ₹ 39,19,709 on compulsory acquisition of land. The AO noticed that the land acquired was situated at Village Khadgaon, Tq. Latur. Since the land in question comprising 45R was well within the municipal limits of Latur, as was mentioned in para 17 of the award, the AO called upon the assessee to prove his claim of agricultural land. He held that for the purpose of claiming exemption u/s 10(37), it was obligatory on the part of the assessee to prove that the land was being used for agricultural purposes in A.Y. 1994-95 and 1995-96. The assessee could not file any proof regarding the cultivation of land in the above years. The 7/12 extracts submitted by the assessee were found to be pertaining to land at Va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
