9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 1076X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rded to the assessee is not chargeable to capital gains tax ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amount of interest accrued upon the amount of compensation is not chargeable to tax ?" 3. The facts giving rise to the present application may be briefly stated as below : 4. The non-applicant assessee was allotted 75 bighas of land in the year 1944 by the former Sirohi State on licence basis for establishing glass factory in Gandhi Nagar area of Abu Road. The allotment provided liberty to assessee to purchase the land at the rate of ₹ 150 per bigha. The assessee did not avail of the liberty to purchase the land. Subsequently, the land was acquired b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not taxable because the State Government has filed an appeal against the order passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Sirohi, in the High Court and the payment has not been made to the assessee directly but it has been deposited in the bank in the shape of FDR with the direction that if the State Government wins the case in the High Court, the amount will be refunded back but the assessee has been allowed to enjoy the interest on this amount only and the compensation amount has been sanctioned on production of the bank guarantee. It was also submitted before the ITO that interest income to the tune of ₹ 15,232 has not been shown by the assessee for the assessment year 1990-91 on the total compensation of ₹ 12,00,000 minus &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of compensation as well as the interest thereon were not assessable as income for the assessment year 1991-92 because the order of the District and Sessions Judge, Sirohi, had not become final as an appeal against that order had been filed before the High Court and the amount of compensation was deposited on furnishing of bank guarantee by the assessee and the assessee was not permitted to withdraw the amount of compensation deposited by the State Government. 8. The Tribunal has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 524. In that case, the Land Acquisition Officer was awarded ₹ 24,97,249 as compensation. The amount of compensation was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted and the quantification only of the amount payable is left to be determined in accordance with settled or accepted principles.'" (p. 525) The order passed by the High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court. 9. An application was filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, Jaipur, under section 256(1), praying that the two questions mentioned in the application may be referred to the High Court for decision. The application was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 27-5-1998, on the ground that the decision of the Tribunal was based on the decision given by the Supreme Court and, therefore, no referable question arose for decision. 10. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
