9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeals involving common points regarding the assessment of interest on compensation of land. Analysis: The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur involved three separate assessees, each with multiple appeals covering assessment years 1985-86 to 1992-93. The central issue in all appeals was the assessment of interest on compensation of land acquired by the Government of India from farmers in village Udasar, Rajasthan. The Government of Rajasthan failed to provide compensation to the landholders, leading to legal intervention and eventual payment of compensation with interest by the State Government. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initiated proceedings under section 148 and made ex parte assessments for the relevant assessment years, which were upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) based the decision on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Dr. Shamlal Narula vs. CIT (1964) and deemed the interest on compensation as taxable income. The assessees raised multiple grounds challenging the assessments, including the legality of the assessments in light of Circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The assessees contended that the interest on compensation should be treated as a capital receipt and not taxable income, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Periyar & Parikanni Rubbers Ltd. (1973). The CBDT issued Circular No. 225 on 29th Feb., 1996, specifying that interest up to the date of award on land compensation is considered a capital receipt and not taxable. The Tribunal noted that the CBDT instructions are binding on IT authorities and referred to a similar decision by the Tribunal in the cases of Shri Amar Sukh and Shri Mohan Ram, where assessments were set aside for re-examination based on similar circumstances. Considering the legal precedents, the Tribunal allowed the additional grounds raised by the assessees and set aside the ex parte assessments made by the ITO and CIT(A) for all the assessees and assessment years involved. The Tribunal directed the matters to be restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh examination in accordance with the law and observations made in the judgment. Therefore, the Tribunal partially allowed all 24 appeals of the three assessees for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a fresh assessment in line with the legal principles discussed in the judgment.
|
