TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 708
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in TDS return filed by the acquirer, but property, capital gain is not declared in return of income. 2. Taxable income shown in Revised return is less than the Reduction of income in taxable income shown in the Original Return and large Revised Return. Refund has been claimed. 2.1 The AO noted that the Government had compulsorily acquired the land vide Award No. 9262/MC/NH664 dated 15.01.2014 and the assessee had received the compensation amounting to Rs. 14,50,040/- (Rs. 16,11,156/- minus TDS Rs. 1,61,116/-) by cheque dated 20.03.2015 from the Sub Magistrate cum Land acquisition Collector, Sangrur. The AO further observed that in the original return, the assessee had shown Long Term Capital Gain at Rs. 8,21,526/- but in the revised return, the assessee had claimed Long Term Capital Gain as exempt u/s 10(37) of the Act in view of Circular No. 36/2016 dated 25.10.2016 issued by the CBDT. 2.2 The AO called for information from the Land Acquisition Collector, Sangrur and, thereafter, reached the conclusion that the land was acquired under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 and compensation was awarded under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The AO furt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pulsory acquisition of land on National Highway-64 covered under RFCTLARR Act is totally exempted as per circular issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes & as per provision of law under RFCTLARR Act. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified to sustain the finding of Income Tax Officer to assess additional compensation as interest u/s 56 amounting to Rs. 1,05,918/-. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal is heard or dispose off. 3.0 At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that there was a delay of 204 days in filing of the appeal before the ITAT. It was submitted that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the appeal in as much as the appeal should have been filed by 24.08.2019 but since the assessee's husband Shri Teja Singh was hospitalized due to Kidney ailments, heart attack and by-pass surgery, there was a sufficient cause for the delay between the period 24.08.2019 to 15.03.2020. It was further submitted that, thereafter, the limitation was extended by the Hon'ble Apex Court in view of the Covid-19 pandemic and lock-down through down the country and this limitation was exten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the Chandigarh Bench of the ITAT. 8.0 We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. The facts are not in dispute. It is seen that the Government had compulsorily acquired the land of the assessee vide Award No. 9262/MC/NH664 dated 15.01.2014 whereas the compensation cheque was dated 20.03.2015. It is also not in dispute that this land was acquired by the National Highways Authority of India in terms of section 3(A)(1) of the National Highway Act, 1956 for the purpose of widening of National Highway No. 64 on the stretch of land from KM 5.700 to KM 209.55 on Patiala - Sangrur - Bhatinda Section in District Sangrur in the state of Punjab. It is also not in dispute that vide Notification No. SO1138 (E) dated 03.05.2013, the Central Government had duly published the Notification regarding the acquisition and had also specified that the said land was to vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. 8.1 We note that the facts in this case are identical to the facts in the case of DCIT Vs. Shri Ram Gopal in ITA No. 397/Chd/2019 for assessment year 2015-16 wherein, vide order dated 30.05.2022, a Division Bench of ITAT Chand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te that the Ld. CIT(A) has also given a detailed findings on the issue in which the Ld. CIT(A) has also quoted and followed certain judicial precedents and we are in complete agreement with the findings so arrived at by the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue and we uphold his findings while dismissing the ground raised by the Department." 8.2 We further note that identical issue had also come up in another case i.e. of Shri Satish Kumar, Sangrur and Other Vs. ITO, Sangrur in ITA Nos. 1182 and 1183/Chd/ 1019 for assessment year 2015-16 and vide order dt. 31.08.2021, the assessee's appeals were allowed with the following observations:- "10. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the assessee received the compensation on account of land acquired by NHAI. The assessee moved an application before the A.O. for rectification of the mistake and also filed the revised computation of income wherein the Short Term Capital Gain to the tune of Rs. 2,09,108/- and Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 1,54,29,120/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n land). 2. The RFCTLARR Act which came into effect from 1st January, 2014, in section 96, inter alia provides that income-tax shall not be levied on any award or agreement made (except those made under section 46) under the RFCTLARR Act. Therefore, compensation received for compulsory acquisition of land under the RFCTLARR Act (except those made under section 46 of RFCTLARR Act), is exempted from the levy of income-tax. 3. As no distinction has been made between compensation received for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land and non-agricultural land in the matter of providing exemption from income-tax under the RFCTLARR Act, the exemption provided under section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act is wider in scope than the tax-exemption provided under the existing provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961. This has created uncertainty in the matter of taxability of compensation received on compulsory acquisition of land, especially those relating to acquisition of non-agricultural land. The matter has been examined by the Board and it is hereby clarified that compensation received in respect of award or agreement which has been exempted from levy of income-tax vide section 96 of the RFCTLA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule, rehabilitation and resettlement in accordance with the Second Schedule and infrastructure amenities in accordance with the Third Schedule shall apply to all cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule to the said Act." From the above, it is clear that the applicability of the Acquisition Act of 2013 has been given effect in respect of the enactment specified in Fourth Schedule including the NH Act of 1956 with effect from 01.01.2015. It is therefore clear that the applicability of the Acquisition Act 2013 has been given effect to the NH Act 1956 w.e.f 01/01/2015 and the assessee received the compensation on 05/11/2014 & 23/11/2015. In the present case also the land was compulsorily acquired by NHAI therefore the compensation received by the assessee was exempted under the Income Tax Act. Since the clarificatory Circular was issued by the CBDT on 25/10/2016 i.e; after the date of filing the return by the assessee on 30/11/2015 that is why an application under section 154 of the Act was moved by the assessee. ....