9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1222 - HC - Income TaxAssessment of income - nature of amount of interest towards late payment - work could not be completed by the stipulated period and hence a dispute arose between the assessee and the Irrigation Department - as contended that the actual income as assessed by the AO is required to be taken into consideration for the current year - Held that - However taking into account that the carry forward loss was not there and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ghayshyam (2009 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT ) as reproduced herein above, we are of the view that the interest actually received was income. We restore the order of the AO and the order of CIT(A) and order of the tribunal is quashed and set aside. - Decided against the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the receipts and the interest were neither certain nor quantifiable, so no addition could be made for the relevant year when the amount of interest was actually received by the assessee in the year under consideration. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Tribunal's Justification on Receipts and Interest: The High Court examined whether the Tribunal was correct in its decision that the receipts and interest were neither certain nor quantifiable, thus no addition could be made for the relevant year. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal of the department and confirmed the order of the CIT(A), which had ruled in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in *Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal-II, Calcutta vs. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd.* (1986) 3 SCC 641, which held that income does not accrue until there is an absolute right to receive it. 2. Facts of the Case: The assessee, a contractor, filed a return of income for the assessment year 2007-08. The AO made a trading addition and taxed interest as 'Income from other sources.' The dispute arose from a contract with the Irrigation Department, Dausa, which led to an award by the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City. The award included compensation and interest for late payment, which the assessee received during the financial year 2006-07. The State Government appealed against this decision, which was pending during the assessment proceedings. 3. Appellant's Contention: The appellant argued that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the department's appeal. They cited the Supreme Court's decision in *Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd.*, which stated that income accrues only when there is a right to receive it, and the amount is quantifiable. 4. Supreme Court's Subsequent Decision: The Supreme Court in *Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad vs. Ghanshyam (HUF)* (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC) clarified that enhanced compensation is taxable in the year of receipt, even if it is under dispute. The Court noted that Section 45(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, introduced a new scheme for taxing compensation received under compulsory acquisition, making it taxable on receipt basis. 5. Andhra Pradesh High Court's Decision: The appellant also relied on the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in *Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M. Sarojini Devi* (2001) 250 ITR 759 (AP), which held that interest accrued on enhanced compensation is taxable over the period it accrues, and the assessee can seek a refund if the compensation is later reduced. 6. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal held that the entire award, including interest, was under dispute before the High Court, and thus, no addition could be made in the year under consideration. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in *Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd.*, which supported the view that income does not accrue until the right to receive it is certain. 7. High Court's Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the interest received by the assessee was indeed income for the current year, as per the Supreme Court's decision in *Ghanshyam (HUF)*. The Court restored the AO's order, quashing the CIT(A) and Tribunal's orders. The Court also noted that if the assessee loses the case, the payment will be treated as set-off expenses. 8. Section 155(16) of the Income Tax Act: The Court highlighted Section 155(16), which allows the AO to amend the assessment if the compensation is reduced by any court or authority. The Court directed that if the assessee applies under Section 155(16), the AO should reassess the income accordingly. Final Judgment: The High Court answered the issue in favor of the department and against the assessee, allowing the appeal and restoring the AO's order.
|
