Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This interest is in lieu of delayed possession of compensation to which he was entitled immediately on the acquisition of his land. Learned counsel for the assessee relies in the main upon the decision of the Allahabad High court in Behari Lal Bhargava v. Commissoner of income-tax, which no doubt supports the principle contended for by the assessee. In that case the Division Bench of that court was examining the nature of the interest awarded under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and expressed the view that it was in the nature of compensation for the loss of the right to retain possession of the property acquired and was, therefore, damages assessed in terms of interest for loss of possession of property up to the date of the receipt of its consideration; and as such was not income and was not assessable. The facts of that case were that two houses belonging to the assessees father had been acquired and the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded a certain sum as compensation. The assessee did not accept that sum as adequate and on a reference having been made by him to the Tribunal, the amount of compensation was increased. Consequently, the Improvement Trust who had acquired the property was directed under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act to pay interest to him from the date of taking possession of the property to the date of payment On his fathers death the assessee received a certain sum as share of interest and the income-tax authorities assessed this amount to income-tax. The question of law referred to the High Court under section 66 of the Income-tax Act was :

The Madras High Court in Narayanan Chettiars case doubted the correctness of the decision in Behari Lal Bhargavas case and the reasoning of the Allahabad High Court was not followed. In the Madras case on the death of the assessees father the amount due to the assessee and his brother on account of their fathers share was held to be a specified sum due to them in 1921, the date of the death of their father. The assessee and his brother being minors, the amount was not paid to them till 1938 when a further sum was ordered to be paid to them on account of interest. The assessee received a sum of Rs. 21,153 and this amount was treated as assessable to income-tax as it represented interest and not damages for the wrongful detention of money.