9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (10) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of Rs. 83,155 was awarded. Each of the assessees before us, being one-fourth owner of the lands was entitled to one-fourth of the compensation amount. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Government on 30th March, 1966, the assessee made a reference under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Sub-Judge of the Civil Court. The learned Sub-Judge awarded a higher compensation on 30th Aug., 1971 and also awarded interest at 4 per cent on the additional amount awarded by him from the date of acquisition till the date of payment. The assessees claimed that the interest relating to the earlier years could not be taxed during the year under consideration. The ITO took the view that the entire interest awarded by the Sub- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contentions of both parties as well as the facts on record. To a specific query put by us, the learned Representative for the assessee stated before us that an appeal has been filed by the Government against the award of the Sub-Judge given on 30th Aug., 1971. In view of this fact, we find that the present appeals before us come within the ratio of our decision, dt. 14th Sept., 1977, referred to above. Following our own decision, we hold that the accrual of interest under the award of the Sub-Judge is still a matter of litigation and so it cannot be said that any interest has finally accrued to the assessee as yet and consequently, the authorities below were not justified in bringing any amount of the interest on the basis of the said award ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve considered the facts on record. In our opinion, the reasoning given by the AAC is quite sound. The ITO has not given details about the situation and the date of purchase in the case of Smt. Manthena Ramanamma. The AAC has considered the matter more thoroughly. He have taken the value at Rs. 18,000 only even though he could have taken it at a still higher figure on the basis of the valuation of land adopted in the case of Smt. V. Radha. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the valuation taken by the AAC is quite fair and so we uphold the same. 7. The only other ground in this appeal is that the AAC erred in allowing the basic exemption of Rs. 5,000 to each of the part-owners while computing the quantum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
