2025 (6) TMI 1482

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the assessee. In other words, prolonged process of litigation and providing adjournment unnecessarily delays the process of justice which hampers the trust of the litigants in the judicial process. The fact of the matter is that the case was going from on 20.02.2025 than on 12.03.2025 and 10.06.2025 and all throughout the hearing dates had been duly communicated to the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishwarlal Mali Rathod Vs. Gopal and Ors., passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 14117-14118 of 2021, order dated 20.09.2021, held and observed that as on today the judiciary and the justice delivery system is facing acute problem of delay which ultimately affects the rights of the litigant to access to justice and speedy trial. Arrears are mounting because of such delay and dilatory tactics and asking of repeated adjournments by the advocates and mechanically and in routine manner being granted by the courts. It cannot be disputed that due to delay in access to justice and not getting the timely justice it may shake the trust and confidence of the litigants in the justice delivery system. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed specifically th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO v Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 40 (SC) held that; "a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record". A look at the records must show that there has been an error and that error may be rectified; Reference to documents outside the records and the law is impermissible when applying the provisions of section 154. [CIT v Keshri Metal Pvt. Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 165 (SC)]. 4. Further, section 96 of the RCTLAAR Act, 2013 states that "No income tax or stamp duty shall be levied on any award or agreement made under this Act, except under section 46 and no person claiming under any such award or agreement shall be liable to pay any fee for a copy of the same." This clearly states that the income tax is not levied where the award has been received except under section 46 of the RCTLAAR Act, 2013. 5. In the present case, the assessee has claimed that the land has been acquired by the N....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....I filed for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 07.11.2017, this income was included as part of the total income disclosed in it of Rs. 87,94,860/-. 5.2.1 The appellant's states that it was a mistake on its part of having declared this compensation as income, since he was not aware that as per section 96 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and Circular no. 36/2016 dated 25.10.2016 of CBDT, the compensation so received was exempt from tax, when the land was compulsorily acquired. According to the appellant the income that was otherwise exempt was offered to tax due to lack of knowledge and improper guidance, inadvertently. 5.2.2. In order to gain relief, the appellant had filed an appeal a rectification petition on 04.09.2023, enclosing a revised computation of income, according to which, the appellant was entitled for a refund of Rs. 17,07,340/-. In the revise computation, the gross total income was reduced to Rs. 36,41,079/- and through the rectification petition u/s 154, the appellant sought relief, quoting section 96 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and Circular no. 36/2016 dated 25.10.2016 of CBDT. 5.2.3 However, in the order dated 24.01.2024, the ITO W- 4(1), Raipur had rejected the claim of relief sought, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... this regard, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT at Raipur in the case of Heritage Buildcon (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 2023 SCC OnLine ITAT 1285. has taken a clear view, holding that Section 105(1) makes all provisions of the Act inapplicable to the land acquisitions made under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule to the Act. While Section 105(3) only makes the First Schedule, Second Schedule and Third Schedule applicable to the land acquisitions made under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule to the Act. 5.4.3 By virtue of the said section, the provisions of Section 96 are not made applicable to land acquisitions made under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule to the Act. For this, the ITAT, Raipur has relied on Office Memorandum dated 6-6-2019 issued by the CBDT, which is relied by the AO. Thus, it was held that exemption under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act is not applicable to land acquisitions under the NHAI Act, which is an enactment specified under Fourth Schedule of the RFCTLARR Act. 5.4.5 The fact situation in the case under consideration is exactly identical to that of Heritage Buildcon (supra) and therefore, when the Jurisdictional ITAT had he....