9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to review. The Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ramesh Electric And Trading Co. [ 1992 (11) TMI 32 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] while relying upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers [ 1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] and further relying upon the decisions of the various High Courts has categorically held that the power of rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act can be exercised only when the mistake which is sought to be rectified is an obvious and patent, which is apparent from the record, and not a mistake which is required to be established by arguments and a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. Misc. Applications are hereby dismissed. - M.A. No.61/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 564/Chd/2010), M.A. No.62/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 565/Chd/2010), M.A. No.63/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 566/Chd/2010), M.A. No.64/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 567/Chd/2010), M.A. No.65/Chd/2014 (in ITA No. 568/Chd/2010) And Others - - - Dated:- 7-2-2018 - SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No.66/Chd/2014 (in ITA N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... j Kaur, Sh. Teja Singh, Sh. Vijay Kumar, Sh. Maha Singh, Sh. Paramjit Singh, Sh. Parvesh Kumar, Sh. Ram Swaroop, Smt. Rajinder Kaur, Sh. Kamaljeet Singh, Smt. Jasbir Kaur, Smt. Kuldip Kaur, Sh. Kaka Singh, Sh. Karamjit Singh, Sh. Harmesh Singh, Sh. Balwinder Singh, Smt. Birmati For the Appellant : Sh. Manjit Singh, DR For the Respondent : Sh. Ashwani Kumar ORDER Per Annapurna Gupta, AM: The captioned Misc. Applications filed by the Revenue seek rectification of the order passed by the ITAT dt.10-08-2010 in the group of cases with the lead case being ITO, Ward-1, Ambala Vs. Shri Devi Dayal, Ambala City in ITA No. 561/Chd/2010. 2. The Misc. Application filed requests reconsideration of the order in the light of the subsequent decision of the Jurisdictional High Court on the issue in appeal being determination of assessability of interest received by the assessee as part of the enhanced compensation against the acquisition of agricultural land owned by the assessee. The ITAT in the said judgment had stated that the interest in question was received by the assessee in terms of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and following the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proposition that a subsequent decision of the High Court or Supreme Court was material enough to hold the order erroneous since it laid down the law as it always existed. At this juncture, Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the fact that subsequent to the Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Bir Singh (HUF) (supra) and Manjet Singh (supra), the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya (2014) 367 ITR 498(SC) had reiterated the proposition laid down in Ghanshyam HUF (supra). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, therefore, contended that the ITAT had rightly dismissed the Revenue s appeal following the decision of the Ghanshyam HUF (supra) and there was no error as such in the order. 6. The Ld. DR countered by stating that the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya (supra) was to be read in the light of the question before it, which it was pointed out to us from para 3 of the order as relating to the issue of the of taxability of the interest income and whether this was to be assessed to tax in the year of receipt or it could be spread over the period of time. The Ld. DR stated that the judgments are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubsequent to the decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the Apex Court had reiterated the proposition laid down in Ghanshyam HUF (supra),in the case of CIT Vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya (supra) holding at para 7 of its order as under: 7. Insofar as the second question is concerned, that is also covered by another judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) reported in (2009) 8 SCC 412, 6 albeit, in favour of the Revenue. In that case, the court drew distinction between the interest earned under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and the interest which is under Section 34 of the said Act. The Court clarified that whereas compensation given to the assessee of the land acquired would be 'income', the enhanced compensation/consideration becomes income by virtue of Section 45(5)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The question was whether it will cover interest and if so, what would be the year of taxability. The position in this respect is explained in paras 49 and 50 of the judgment which make the following reading: 49. As discussed hereinabove, Section 23(1-A) provides for additional amount. It takes care of the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed w.e.f. 1-4-1988 as an overriding provision. As stated above, compensation under the L.A.Act, 1894, arises and is payable in multiple stages which does not happen in cases of transfers by sale, etc. Hence, the legislature had to step in and say that as and when the assessee claimant is in receipt of enhanced compensation it shall be treated as deemed income and taxed on receipt basis. Our above understanding is supported by insertion of clause (c) in Section 45(5) w.e.f. 1-4-2004 and Section 155(16) which refers to a situation of a subsequent reduction by the court, tribunal or other authority and recomputation/ amendment of the assessment order. 54. Section 45 (5) read as a whole [including clause (c)] not only deals with reworking as urged on behalf of the assessee but also with the change in the full value of the consideration (computation) and since the enhanced compensation/consideration (including interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act) becomes payable/ paid under the 1894 Act at different stages, the receipt of such enhanced compensation/ consideration is to be taxed in the year of receipt subject to adjustment, if any, under Section 155(16) of the 1961 Act, later ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue in appeal ,as on date, is that as laid down in the case of Ghanshyam HUF (supra) and reiterated in the case of CIT Vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya (supra).The ITAT having followed the proposition laid down in the aforesaid decisions while rendering its judgement, therefore, there is clearly no error in the said order. Even otherwise, powers of the Tribunal u/s 254 of the Act are very limited and are restricted to rectifying only apparent errors and it has no power to review. The Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ramesh Electric And Trading Co. 1993 203 ITR 497 (Bom.), while relying upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 and further relying upon the decisions of the various High Courts has categorically held that the power of rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act can be exercised only when the mistake which is sought to be rectified is an obvious and patent, which is apparent from the record, and not a mistake which is required to be established by arguments and a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
