9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Taxability of enhanced compensation received by the assessee on account of acquisition of agricultural land. 2. Addition of cash introduced by the assessee. 3. Typographical error in the date of cash entry. 4. Grounds 3 & 4 not pressed. 5. General nature of Ground 5. Issue 1: Taxability of Enhanced Compensation: The appeal pertains to the taxability of enhanced compensation of Rs. 12,17,364 received by the assessee due to the acquisition of agricultural land by Noida Authorities. The assessee contended that the compensation was related to agricultural land, which was previously accepted as exempt by the Assessing Officer. The enhanced compensation was awarded by the District Judge, with an interim order from the High Court allowing the withdrawal of 50% of the amount. The Assessing Officer, however, taxed the entire enhanced compensation, claiming lack of details. The Tribunal held that the amount received was on account of agricultural land acquisition and was not taxable. It also noted that the amount was a contingent receipt due to the pending suit, following precedents that such receipts cannot be taxed. Issue 2: Addition of Cash Introduced: The second ground raised by the assessee related to the addition of Rs. 2,38,120 on account of cash introduced. The Assessing Officer noted discrepancies in the dates between the cash book entry and the invoices of cash sales. The cash was entered on 5-5-1996 in the cash book but the cash memo was dated 13-5-1996. The Assessing Officer added the amount under section 68 of the Act as unexplained. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition ex parte. The Tribunal considered the typographical error in the date submission and directed the issue to be verified by the Assessing Officer for a correct decision. Issue 3: Typographical Error in Cash Entry Date: The assessee claimed a typographical error in mentioning the date of the cash entry to the Assessing Officer, stating that the correct date was 13-5-1996 instead of 5-5-1996. Supporting documents were provided to show the correct date alignment between the cash book entry and cash memos. The Tribunal acknowledged the inadvertent mistake and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for verification and appropriate action. Issue 4: Grounds 3 & 4 Not Pressed: Grounds 3 & 4 raised by the assessee were not pressed and were dismissed accordingly. Issue 5: General Nature of Ground 5: Ground 5 was of a general nature and did not require specific adjudication. In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, ruling in favor of the assessee on the taxability of enhanced compensation and directing further verification on the addition of cash introduced due to a typographical error in the date entry.
|
