Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. On the other hand, the learned representative for Revenue countered that : When the assessee purchased it was a notified land subject to acquisition. It is incorrect to say that no reason was recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening, i.e., for initiating proceedings under S. 148. On 29th Sept., 1989, for the asst. yr. 1988-89 the assessee declared income at Rs. 40,500 and there is a specific column in the return as Annexure E which has not been filled up by the assessee. Computation of income and statement of affairs are unsigned. Page 2 of the paper book which is the capital account furnished as on 31st March, 1988 of the assessee, may be seen, in which the assessee has of course furnished the note. This return was pressed while computing under S. 143 of the Act. The statement of affair cannot be said disclosing fully and truly all the material facts. There is no mention as to whether additional compensation was received. The material fact or date of receipt has also not been disclosed. Page 2 of the return admittedly is a relevant document. There is no provision of law which is relevant for reopening prior to the amendment which is w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, with reference to Ss. 147 to 152 of the Act. A perusal of the Commentary on the Treatise of the Income-tax by Sampath Iyangar in Vth Vol. in the latest Edn. at page 4287 may be had to show that the amendments are retrospective and that S. 147(a) and (b) were not there and this aspect of the submission that Ss. 147(a) and (b) are not applicable is an alternative submission. It is also not shown as to when the disbursement was made. The break-up of total amount received by the assessee was subsequently obtained by the Assessing Officer on the basis of which order under S. 154 was passed by him and the copy of the same is filed as additional evidence which is relevant for determining the quantum of income and it is not detrimental to the assessee if that is now filed and there is nothing new in it. Regarding capital gains, provisions were earlier incorporated w.e.f. 1947-48 and it was made applicable during 1st April, 1948 to 31st March, 1956. The decision in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. cited infra, pertaining to the asst. yr. 1956-57 may be seen. It could be capital or revenue receipt on account of compensation and in the latter case the head of the income is "business". If there is capital receipt, then it is as per capital gain provisions under the Act. Sec. 155(7A) as well as S. 45(5) of the Act may be seen. Clause (a) is with reference to enhancement and cl. (b) is a deeming provision. Accrual, etc., is embodied in the word "received". Accrual is always near transfer. Received cannot be construed as accruable or arisen, etc. It was a revenue receipt in this case and the accrual or arisen will apply. These are the aspects which the Revenue wishes to focus. In respect of the decisions relied upon by the assessee in the cases of Hindustan Housing & Development Trust Ltd. and J.K. Synthetics Ltd., cited infra, the award of additional compensation was enhanced by the Addl. District Judge in connection with which pages 8 to 25 of the paper book may be seen, particularly at paras 6 and 7 thereof in pages 21 and 22 of the paper book. Just because the State has filed the appeal, it cannot be said that the dispute is substantial. Pages 39 to page 42 of the paper book may also be seen which is the petition filed before the High Court by the Union of India, particularly at item No. 4 in page 40 thereof. Sec. 45(5) refers to receipt and not what ultimately became receivable. Reliance is also placed on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Oriental Rubber Works, cited infra. The additional compensation awarded by the Addl. District Judge is also withdrawn unconditionally. The right in appeal is only inchoate and not for the award and the right of the Union to get the money is only inchoate and not of the assessee. There are conflicting decisions of the Tribunal on the point. The decision in the case of Harish Chandra & Ors. vs. CIT, cited infra, is also relied upon. The instant case is more akin to the case of Shah Vrajlal Madhavji vs. CIT cited infra. Reliance is also had on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Rohtak Textile Mills Ltd., cited infra. The decision relied upon by the assessee contained at pages 79 and 80 of the paper book in the case of Smt. Madhu Jain is not applicable to the instant case. The decision in the case of Devendra Prakash Jain of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal contained at page 47 of the paper book, particularly at page 14 thereof, relied upon by the assessee, is also distinguishable. In regard to the quantum, solarium also form part of compensation. Reliance is also placed on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Smt. M. Subaida Beevi, cited infra. Interest is to be taxed as per the method of accounting followed by the assessee. Reliance is placed on the decisions in the case of CIT vs. T.N.K. Govindarajulu Chetty, Peter John. vs. CIT and CIT vs. O.T. Rahman, all cited infra.