2017 (11) TMI 65 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - interest component received as enhanced compensation taxability - Held that - It is apparent and obvious to us that the AO in the original assessment proceedings did not examine the question of taxability of interest as this aspect appears to have completely escaped his attention. It is not even the case of the Petitioner that the AO had examined the said question in the original assessment proceedings. On the question of figures given in the reasons to believe, we would record that the AO had to proceed on the basis of documents available on record. It is not the case of the Assessee that he had not received interest amount as indicated in the reasons to believe. The figure or quantum is disputed. Even if we are inclined to accept the contention of the Petitioner that the figures of interest as indicated in the reasons to believe recorded for issue of reassessment notice are not correct, it cannot be disputed that the Petitioner was also entitled to a part of the interest. The figures may be wrong or incorrect for the reason that the interest had to be bifurcated and divided amongst several recipients and the details of such recipients was not available with the AO when he recorded the said reasons. We have considered the contention raised by the Petitioner that the interest element would partake the character of enhanced compensation and is not taxable, on the basis of the ratio in the case of Ghanshyam (HUF) 2009 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT but we are not giving any opinion on the same at this stage. These aspects, we believe, are matters which the AO will have to examine in detail during the course of reassessment proceedings. We would not like to comment on the issues which the AO will have to determine and decide in the course of reassessment proceedings. AO should have been more careful while disposing of the objections/representation made by the Petitioner.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of reassessment proceedings under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment.
3. Taxability of interest on enhanced compensation under Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Examination of the nature of interest and its taxability in light of relevant Supreme Court decisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Reassessment Proceedings under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The Petitioner challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated by notice dated 24th September 2015 for AY 2011-12. The original assessment was completed on 14th February 2014, where the AO accepted the claim that enhanced compensation was exempt under Section 10(37) of the Act. However, the AO omitted to consider the taxability of interest on enhanced compensation, leading to the reassessment notice.

2. Validity of the Reasons Recorded for Reopening the Assessment:
The AO recorded reasons for reopening the assessment, highlighting that the interest on enhanced compensation amounting to ?80,02,471 was not taxed. The Petitioner argued that the figures from the TDS certificate did not solely relate to him but were shared among several individuals. The Court noted that the AO had to proceed based on available documents, and the Petitioner did not dispute receiving a part of the interest. The AO's omission to consider the taxability of interest justified the reassessment.

3. Taxability of Interest on Enhanced Compensation under Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The AO's reasons for reopening included that interest on enhanced compensation, as per Section 56(2)(viii), was taxable income. The Petitioner contended that the interest component received as enhanced compensation was not taxable, citing the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ghanshyam (HUF). The Respondents argued that the AO was unaware of the interest component in the original assessment, negating any change of opinion.

4. Examination of the Nature of Interest and Its Taxability in Light of Relevant Supreme Court Decisions:
The Court observed that the AO did not examine the taxability of interest in the original assessment. The Petitioner cited the Ghanshyam (HUF) decision, which differentiated between taxable interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act and non-taxable interest under Sections 23(1A), 23(2), and 28. The Respondents pointed out amendments to the Act post the Ghanshyam (HUF) decision, specifically Clause (viii) to Section 56(2) and Clause (b) to Section 145A.

The Court concluded that these aspects should be examined in detail during the reassessment proceedings. The AO's order dated 8th August 2016, rejecting the Petitioner's objections, lacked depth and detail. The AO should have clarified that the issues raised would be examined on merits during reassessment. The Court did not make any observations on the merits of the case and indicated that the Petitioner could challenge the final assessment order if aggrieved.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed without any order of costs. The Court emphasized that the reassessment proceedings should thoroughly examine the taxability of interest on enhanced compensation and consider the relevant Supreme Court decisions. The AO was advised to address the Petitioner's contentions in detail during reassessment.

← Previous Next →