9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to orders passed by Land Acquisition Tribunal regarding compensation 2. Tax assessment on compensation received under Capital Gains Scheme 3. Challenge to reassessment notice under Income-tax Act 4. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 5. Refusal of refund by tax authorities and invocation of writ jurisdiction Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the orders passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal regarding the compensation awarded for the acquisition of agricultural land by the Improvement Trust for a development scheme. The petitioner and the Trust filed writ petitions challenging the Tribunal's orders, which are pending adjudication before the High Court. 2. The petitioner received compensation in instalments during the pendency of litigation and claimed that a portion of it was not liable to be taxed under the Capital Gains Scheme. The assessing authority initially assessed a part of the compensation as income, but the Commissioner (Appeals) later deleted the addition. However, further assessment and appeals are pending. 3. The assessing authority issued a notice for reassessment for previous years, which was challenged by the petitioner in a separate writ petition pending before the High Court. Subsequent assessments and appeals are also pending, with the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the assessment for a specific year. 4. A penalty was imposed on the petitioner under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was later overturned by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which is still pending. 5. The petitioner applied for a refund following the Commissioner (Appeals) order but was refused by the tax authorities. The petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, citing sections 240 and 241 of the Act and relevant case law. The respondents opposed the refund, citing pending appeals and the need to protect revenue interests. The Court held that withholding a refund solely based on pending proceedings is not justified and ordered the refund to be granted within a specified period. This detailed analysis covers the various legal issues and outcomes of the judgment delivered by the High Court in this case.
|
