TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (12) TMI 54
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... obtained orders from this court under section 256(2) of the Act requiring the Appellate Tribunal to refer the following questions: "(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the capital gains arising out of the acquisition of lands covered by survey No. 12 which was taken possession of by the Government on October 12, 1973, but in respect of which an award was passed on July 20, 1974, is taxable in the assessment year 1974-75 ? (4) If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether the Commissioner can revise the order for 1974-75 without revising the assessment order for 1975-76 and whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to direct deletion of the income for the assessment year 1975-76 while the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o is dead ?" which the Tribunal has refused to refer in exercise of its powers under section 256(1) of the Act. The short facts which are necessary for us to answer the questions which are referred to us are the following : Two items of landed property belonging to the assessee were notified under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on September 22, 1966. That was followed by a declaration under section 6 read with section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act which was published on October 6, 1966. On November 17, 1966, the Land Acquisition Officer published notice under section 9(1) of the Act. Fifteen days thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer could have taken possession of the land. By virtue of section 17(1) of the Act, the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng of himself and his son. Before the awards were passed, there was a compromise between the tenant, the assessee and his son, by which the compensation due was apportioned among them. That compromise was accepted by the Income-tax Officer as genuine. The result was that the capital gains assessable to tax were considerably reduced. The Commissioner of Income-tax found that such reduction was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It was on that basis that the Commissioner revised the order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which remanded the question of apportionment and the question of tenancy for determination by the Assessing Officer for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n November 17, 1966. It was thereafter that, on October 12, 1973, the Land Acquisition Officer took possession of both items of land. Irrespective of the date on which the award was passed, the provision of section 17 of the Act became operative, thereby vesting the land absolutely in the State Government. On these very facts, the Commissioner was justified in initiating proceedings under section 263 of the Income-tax Act holding that the Income-tax Officer was erroneous in his order and such error had prejudiced the interests of the Revenue by splitting up the capital gains as assessable in two different assessment years. We, therefore, answer the question in R. C. No. 278 of 1982 against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. On qu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er section 263 of the Income-tax Act. He, therefore, submits that the Commissioner, in revising the order and the Appellate Tribunal, in affirming the revisional order of the Commissioner, have erred in law. Counsel referred us to the decision in Babu Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 1713, to the effect that if there was inordinate delay after the Land Acquisition Officer invoked his power under section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, that may reflect upon the exercise of power under section 17 and it may indicate that there was no urgency and, therefore, there was colourable exercise of power. We are not called upon to consider the effect of delay intervening between the notification invoking the urgency clause and the actual delivery ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Income-tax Act, so interpret the notification as to alter its effect and to convert possession to have been taken under any other provision of the Act. Had the assessee challenged the notification under section 17, he could perhaps have made use of the inordinate delay to succeed in avoiding the notification. The only question before us is the effect of the notification under section 17 and the taking of possession in due compliance with the provisions thereof. We are not persuaded to agree with the petitioner that we shall deem it to be a possession taken under section 16 because of the delay involved in taking possession after the notification under section 17 and the publication of the notice under section 9(1) of the Land Acquisit....