The Commissioner Of Income Tax , Panchkula v. Shri Davender Parshad Jain

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. ITA No. 213 of 2001 Date of decision: 2.8.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax , Panchkula -----Appellant Vs. Shri Davender Parshad Jain ----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Mr. Sanjiv Kaushik, Standing Counsel for the revenue. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1.This order will dispose of ITA Nos.213 of 2001, 120 and121 of 2002 as common question of law is involved in all theseappeals. Facts have been taken from ITA No.213 of 2001. 2.The revenue has preferred this appeal under section 260Aof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) against order dated28.6.2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, ‘C’ New Delhi in ITA No.5611/Del/1992, proposing to raise followingsubstantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that thereis no justification for assessing the amount ofenhanced compensation, additional amount of marketvalue under section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Actand interest on enhanced compensation as the matterrelating to acquisition of land and enhancedcompensation is still subjudice and has not becomefinal.” 3.Land of the assessee was acquired for which compensationwas received. Compensation was taxed as capital gain under section 45of the Act. Enhanced compensation was also treated as income but onappeal, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, following earlier judgment of theHon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Hindustan Housing landDevelopment Trust Limited, (1986) 161 ITR 524, held that tillentitlement to compensation was finally determined, the same could notbe taxed. 4.Learned counsel for the revenue submits that afterconsidering the amendment to Section 45 of the Act, the Hon’bleSupreme Court in CIT v. Ghanshyam, (2009) 315 ITR 1 has held thattaxability will be in the year in which the amount was receivedirrespective of the fact whether the proceedings had become final ornot. 5.In view of above, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot besustained. The matter will have to be decided afresh. The appeals areallowed. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision onmerits in accordance with law. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge