Year-wise taxation of interest on enhanced compensation applies; co-owners were taxed individually, not as an association of persons.

Reassessment notice issued jointly to three co-owners was held valid because the persons sought to be reassessed were identifiable, reasons had been recorded before issue, and no prejudice-causing defect was shown. Interest on enhanced compensation was not assessable as income of an association of persons, as inheritance and later co-ownership did not amount to a common profit-making venture or joint action to earn income; it was taxable in the individual hands of the co-owners in equal shares. Such interest under the Land Acquisition Act accrues from year to year from dispossession until payment, so it is not taxable only on receipt but must be spread over the relevant years on accrual basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment initiated under sections 147 and 148 was invalid; (ii) whether the interest on enhanced compensation was assessable in the hands of an association of persons or in the individual hands of the three co-owners; (iii) whether the interest on enhanced compensation was taxable in the year of receipt or was liable to be spread over the years to which it related.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment initiated under sections 147 and 148 was invalid.

Analysis: The notice under section 148 was issued to the three brothers jointly and, in substance, conveyed the identity of the persons sought to be reassessed. The absence of a separate mention of status did not invalidate the notice. Since reasons were recorded before issue of notice and the notice suffered from no prejudice-causing defect, the challenge to reopening could not succeed.

Conclusion: The reassessment was valid and the challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the interest on enhanced compensation was assessable in the hands of an association of persons or in the individual hands of the three co-owners.

Analysis: An association of persons requires a common purpose or common action to earn income, with volition and a design to produce profits. The three brothers succeeded to the land by inheritance under the Hindu Succession Act and later became co-owners after relinquishment by two heirs. The acquisition by the Government was compulsory and not the result of any joint adventure or common profit-making arrangement. There was no material to show a consensus ad idem to form an association of persons.

Conclusion: The income could not be assessed as that of an association of persons and had to be taxed in the individual hands of the co-owners in equal shares.

Issue (iii): Whether the interest on enhanced compensation was taxable in the year of receipt or was liable to be spread over the years to which it related.

Analysis: Interest on delayed payment of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act accrues from year to year from the date of dispossession until payment. The governing principle is that such interest is not a single lump-sum accrual in the year of receipt; it is attributable to the successive years during which the compensation remained unpaid. The receipt of the amount in one year did not alter the year-wise accrual character of the interest.

Conclusion: The interest was not taxable only in the year of receipt and had to be spread over the relevant years on accrual basis.

Final Conclusion: The reopening was upheld, but the taxability of the interest was to be worked out year-wise and in the individual hands of the three co-owners rather than in the status of an association of persons.

Ratio Decidendi: Interest on enhanced compensation under the Land Acquisition Act accrues year by year from the date of dispossession to the date of payment and, where the land is inherited and later held jointly without any profit-making combination, the receipt cannot be assessed in the hands of an association of persons.

---