9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory acquisition of land under National Highway Act, 1956, by relying on Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and clarificatory Circular No. 36/2016 (F. No. 225/88/2016-ITA.II Dated 25.10.2016, despite the fact that the detailed written submissions have been filed during the course of hearing before the CIT(A) NFAC. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has not followed the binding decision of the Amritsar Bench of ITAT in the case of Ranjit Singh & Ranjit Poultry Farm [ITA no. 91/Asr/2023 & 135/Asr/2023] in which the Hon'ble Bench has already held vide orders dt. 30.08.2023 that the compensation received by the assessee arising from compulsory acquisition of land under National Highway Act 1956 is exempt and the above stated facts were brought on record in the submissions uploaded during the course of appellate proceedings. 4. The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and law in rejecting the claim of exemption of Rs. 41,142/- received as additional compensation compulsory acquisition of land under National Highway Act, 1956, by relying on Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and clarificatory Circular No. 36/2016 (F. No. 225/88/2016-ITA.II Dated 25.10.2016. 5. That the appellant craves lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prior to 31.12.2014 by relying upon the Judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of BHAI vs Modan Singh and Others (para-18). 2. Similarly, the facts in the cases of SH. Surinder Kumar as under; Sr. No. Particulars FACTS IN THE CASE OF SURINDER KUMAR FACTS IN THE CASE OF RANJEET SINGH 1. Assessment Year 2016-17 2016-17 2. Issue Compulsory Acquisition of land under the National Highway Act 1956 Compulsory Acquisition of land under the National Highway Act 1956 3. Capital Gain Long Term Capital Gain Long Term Capital Gain 4. Place Village Gill Patti, Distt. Bathinda Village Amargarh, Distt. Bathinda 5. Land acquired for project NH-15 Bathinda to Amritsar NH-15 Bathinda to Amritsar 6. Rate of compensation per Rs.17,847.15 Rs.17,851.24 7. Date of notification 04.02.2014 04.02.2014 8. Award Given on 07.11.2014 07.11.2014 9. Compensation Received in bank account on 18.05.2015 19.05.2015 3. So, from the above it is clear that the facts in the cases of Sh. Surinder Kumar are exactly the same as in the case of Rarsjeet Singh vs ITO in ITA No. 91 /Asr/2023 dated 30.08.2023." 6. In support of the contention, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the previous year in which such compensation has been first received. (b) Reliance is placed on the letter of Ministry of Transport and Highways dated 28th December 2017 [PB 00-00]in which it has been stated as under:- "I am directed to say that the land required for National Highway Projects is acquired under the provisions contained in Section 3 of the National Highways (NH) Act, 1956. Pursuant to the enactment of the RFCTLARR Act of 2013 and its coming into force with effect from 01.01.2014, certain provisions of the 2013 Act became applicable to the other related Acts mentioned in the Fourth Scheduled, including the NH Act, 1956 with effect from 01.01.2015 in terms of Section 105(3) of the RFCTLARR, 2013." (c) Further in the letter dated 28.12.2017 issued by Ministry of Road Transport Et Highways under the subject: Land Acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956 has been stated in para 4.6 (iii) as under:- "(a) All cases of Land Acquisition where the Awards had not been announced under section 3G of the NH Act till 31.12.2014 or where such awards had been announced but compensation had not been paid in respect of majority of the land holdings under acquisition as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndment in section 105 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 was issued on 31.12.2014, which was applicable from 01.01.2015. a) It is a matter of fact that the award of compensation was not paid to the Assessee and it was paid only on 18.05.2015 (proof in the form of bank statement already enclosed above) In reliance we are hereby placing a judgment passed by the same Hon'ble Tribunal Amritsar vide ITA No. 91/ASR/2023, ITA No. 135/ASR/2023 In the case of Sh. Ranjit Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Bathinda and M/s Ranjit Poultry Farm Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda covering the same issue, wherein Hon'ble Tribunal held by the bench that "In the instant case, it is a matter of record that the award of compensation in the said case was not paid till 31.12.2014 and was paid only on 19.05.2015 as evident from bank statement" From the perusal of the above, it submitted that our case of the assessee is completely covered matter as facts already considered in case of of Sh. Ranjit Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Bathinda and M/s Ranjit Poultry Farm Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda vide order pronounced on 30.08.2023 vide ITA No. 91/Asr/2023 & ITA No. 135/A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
