Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. On. Dnani Ram, Huf Through Lrs

ITA No. 809 of 2008 =|. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IITA No. 809 of 2008 Date of Decision: 5.8.2014 | Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ...Appellant. Versus on. Dnani Ram, HUF through LRs ... Respondent CORAM:-HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON BLE MR. JUSTICE FATER DEEP SINGH. PRESENT: Mr. Yogesn Putney, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. Ravi Shanker, Advocate for the respondent,(in ITA No. 809 of 2008). Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate forMr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate for the respondent,(in ITA No. 2 of 2009). AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1.This order shall dispose of ITA Nos. 809 of 2008 and 2 of2009 as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the legal issueinvolved therein is identical. For brevity, the facts are being extractedfrom ITA No. 809 of 2008. 2 This appeal has been preferred by the revenue undersection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act’) against theorder dated 14.3.2008 (Annexure A-lIIl) passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “E’, New Delhi (hereinafter referred toas ‘the Tribunal’) in ITA No. 4667/DEL/03 for the assessment year 199/798, claiming the following substantial question of law:- ITA No. 809 of 2008=2= “VWWnetner on the facts and in the circumstances oT tcase, tne Hon bie ITAT was right In law in nolding thatinterest is to be assessed on an accrual basis tromyear to year and a question of assessment of suchinterest on accrual Dasis would not arise unless it Isfinally determined’? 3)The agricultural land of the assessee located in villageouknrall was acquired by the Haryana Urban Development Authority(HUDA) and interest on the ennanced compensation amounting to L3/,93,//4/- was received by the assessee on 26.10.1996. However, theassessee had not filed return for the assessment year 1997-93voluntarily. A notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on24.3.1999 for the assessment year in question. The return of incomewas filed on 1.3.2001 declaring income of.45908/- as interest from theBank and476,000/- as agricultural income. The assessee had notdeclared the interest on the enhanced compensation on the ground thatthe interest amount on enhanced compensation received from HUDAnad not accrued to him during the year. Accordingly, the AssessingOfficer vide order dated 31.1.2003 (Annexure A-l) framed assessmentunder Section 143(3) of the Act at a total income of438,30,170/-.Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for brevity “the CIT(A)] whovide order dated 11.8.2003 (Annexure A-II) confirmed the addition madeby the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. Still not satisfied,the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal videorder dated 14.3.2008 (Annexure A-IIl) allowed the appeal and deletedthe addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). ITA No. 809 of 2008 a Hence, the present appeal. 4 VVe nave heard learned counsel for the parties 5,it is agreed between the learned counsel for the parties thatin view of the subsequent decisions of this Court InCommissioner ofIncome Tax v. Shri Prem Singh, ITA No. 85 of 2010, decided on5./.2010,Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. KarambirSingh L/H of Late Shri Khushi Ram, ITA No. 283 of 2006, decided on24.8.2010, |Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Bir Singh(HUF) Ballabgarh, ITA No. 209 of 2004, decided on 27.10.2010, CMNos. 2/7928-29-Cll of 2010 in ITA No. 85 of 2010 Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Panchkula v. Prem Singh, |aecided on 16.12.2010 andManjeet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh v. Union of India andotners, CWP No. 15506 of 2013, decided on 14.1.2014, the matter Isrequired to be remanded to the Tribunal to adjudicate the issue afresh inaccordance witn law. 5,it is agreed between the learned counsel for the parties thatin view of the subsequent decisions of this Court InCommissioner ofIncome Tax v. Shri Prem Singh, ITA No. 85 of 2010, decided on5./.2010,Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. KarambirSingh L/H of Late Shri Khushi Ram, ITA No. 283 of 2006, decided on24.8.2010, |Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Bir Singh(HUF) Ballabgarh, ITA No. 209 of 2004, decided on 27.10.2010, CMNos. 2/7928-29-Cll of 2010 in ITA No. 85 of 2010 Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Panchkula v. Prem Singh, |aecided on 16.12.2010 andManjeet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh v. Union of India andotners, CWP No. 15506 of 2013, decided on 14.1.2014, the matter Isrequired to be remanded to the Tribunal to adjudicate the issue afresh inaccordance witn law. 6,Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the orders passedpy the Iribunal in both the appeals are set aside and the matters areremitted to the Tribunal to decide afresh in accordance with law afteraffording an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE August 5, 2014gbs (FATEH DEEP SINGH) JUDGE ITA No. 809 of 2008 =4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IIA No. 2 of 2009 Date of Decision: 5.8.72014 | Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ...Appellant. Versus on. Kartar Singh, HUF througn LRs ... Respondent CORAM:-HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON BLE MR. JUSTICE FATER DEEP SINGH. PRESENT: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate forMr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. For orders, seeITA No. 809 of 2008 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Sh. Dhani Ram, HUF through LRs). (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE August 5, 2014 gbs (FATEH DEEP SINGH) JUDGE