TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (2) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the compensation to Rs. 2,72,136 including solatium and interest. The same was affirmed on appeal by the High Court on October 16, 1970. The appellant filed a return under section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), on February 17, 1972, disclosing the interest on belated payment of compensation as her income. The Income-tax Officer rejected it as invalid as it was filed beyond the period prescribed under section 139(4) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 147(a) of the Act for the year ending March 31, 1965, in March, 1973, and issued a notice under section 148 on April 21, 1973. He sought the sanction of the Commissioner on the ground that the land acquired was not agricul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the Department ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the lands are agricultural lands?" By a detailed order, the Tribunal rejected the application with reference to questions Nos. 2 and 3 but referred only the first question by recasting it as follows (see [1991] 190 ITR 342, 343): "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Income-tax Officer in this case were not valid in law?" The High Court by its judgment dated April 1, 1991, answered the question in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Aggri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear to year will have to be included as a protective basis. The assessee has filed a return disclosing an income of Rs. 3,599 being interest on belated compensation on February 17, 1972. As this has been filed beyond the period prescribed under section 139(4) the return has been treated as invalid and filed. I have, therefore, reason to believe the income chargeable to tax has escaped for the assessment year 1965-66 and that such escapement was by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a valid return under section 139 for the assessment year 1965-66. I request the Commissioner to accord sanction for reopening the assessment under section 147(a)." Apart from the said communication, there is nothing on record to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Andhra Pradesh High Court in Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards) v. CWT [1969] 72 ITR 552 [FB]. The Full Bench of the High Court had in its judgment held that actual user of the land for agricultural purposes was not necessary for making it an agricultural land and it was sufficient if the land could have been put to agricultural use. The judgment of this court was rendered only on August 6, 1976, long after the reopening of the assessment by the Income-tax Officer in the present case. Thus when he invoked section 147(a) of the Act, the aforesaid judgment of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was holding the field. Hence, the Income-tax Officer could not have applied a test different from that laid down by the said Full Bench f....