9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem u/s 28 of the LAA,1894,as compensation following the proposition laid down by the apex court in Ghanshyam HUF(supra). Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has already been considered in various case decided by various benches of the Tribunal and in this respect specific reliance was placed on order of the Delhi Bench in the case of Opinder Singh Virk, where vide order dated 14/03/2019, Hon'ble Tribunal had decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The Ld. AR further placed his reliance on order of Lucknow Tribunal where under similar facts and circumstances vide order dated 07/03/2018, the Tribunal had decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Similarly, reliance was placed on the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal of Chandigarh, in the case of Shri Bharat Bhushan vs Pr. CIT in ITA No.597/Chd/2018, where the Hon'ble Tribunal after considering the various case laws including the case law of Manjeet Singh(HUF), decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 4. We have heard rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that it is an undisputed fact that assessee has received interest u/s 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Ghanshyam(HUF) 182 taxman 368 has clearly held that interest received by the assessee in view of secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act, which exempts such receipts from being taxed. It could be noted that Section 45(5) makes no reference to the nature of property that is acquired but it deals with the category of cases which falls in the description of "capital assets". However, Section 10(37) exempts specifically an income chargeable under the head "capital gains" arising from the transfer of agricultural land. It is, therefore, clear that once the Hon'ble Supreme court directed the AO in the case of Hari Singh (supra) that after examining the facts to apply the provisions contained in the Income-tax Act with a specific reference to the agricultural land stating that in case if it is found that the compensation was received in respect of the agricultural land, the tax deposited with the Income-tax Department shall be refunded to these depositors. 10. In this matter, what was acquired by the Government was an agricultural land and such a fact is well evident from the assessment order itself . As a matter of fact, learned AO, by granting exemption under section 10(37) of the Act, refunded a sum of ₹ 1,22,01,723/-. Only question is whether the interest received under section 28 of the Act assumes the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entions. We find merit in the contention of the Id. counsel for the assessee. Undoubtedly the Ld. Pr. CIT had heavily relied on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Manjit Singh (supra) and more specifically in the case of Naresh Jain (supra) to hold that the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ghanshyam, HUF that interest received u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was part of the enhanced compensation, was not good law. As rightly pointed out by the Id. counsel for the assessee the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the aforesaid proposition in the case of Hari Singh (supra) subsequent to the decision passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Naresh Jain (supra) .We have gone through the order of the Apex Court in the case of Hari Singh and find that the Union of India had come before the Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court in writ petition filed by the asseseees before the High Court. The issue before the High Court was that the assessees had received enhanced compensation on which tax had been deducted at source as per the provision of Section 194LA of the Act. The assessee had contended that no tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in case they feel that the compensation in respect of land belonging to them which had been acquired was agricultural land, and claim refund of the tax which was deducted at source and deposited with the Income Tax Department. On the filing of these returns, the Assessing Officer(s) shall go into the aforesaid question and wherever it is found that the compensation was received in respect of agricultural land, the tax deposited with the Income Tax Department shall be refunded to these respondents. (2) While determining as to whether the compensation paid was for agricultural land or not, the Assessing Officer(s) will keep in mind the provisions of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and the law laid down by this Court in 'Commissioner of Income Tax. Faridabad v. Ghanshyam (HUF)' [2009 (8) SCC 412] in order to ascertain whether the interest given under the said provision amounts to compensation or not. (3) The direction to refund the amount of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) to the Land Acquisition Collector is, accordingly, set aside. However, in those cases where the amount has already been refunded, no interference is called for and it will be for the Income Tax Departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
