TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1601
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment year 2022-23.The said Chidananda -assessee did not file his Income tax returns and expired on 14.08.2022. Subsequent to which, the petitioner submitted an application on 23.03.2023 under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the I.T returns for the assessment year 2022-23 as the legal heir of her husband. Petitioner contended that her husband had received a sum of Rs.1,26,71,726/- from the SLAO - NHAI as compensation towards acquisition and a sum of Rs.12,67,173/- had been deducted by way of TDS towards income tax. It was contended that the said deduction was illegal and contrary to Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the RFCTLARR Act) and that the delay in filing the I.T Returns by her husband was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and as such, her aforesaid application for condonation of delay deserves to be allowed and the I.T return deserves to be accepted from exempting payment of Income tax on the aforesaid compensation. 2.1 In the first instance, the respondent herein passed an order dated 16.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r/w the Fourth Schedule to the said Act as well as the Notifications, Guidelines, Circulars, Orders etc., passed by the Central Government / Highway Authorities, including Gazette Notification dated 28.08.2015, which makes the said Act applicable to the National Highways Act which is notified as item No.7 in the Fourth Schedule. It is therefore contended, that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent deserves to be set aside and the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed by exempting the petitioner from payment of income tax and also from deduction of TDS. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order and submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. A perusal of the impugned order indicate that the various aforesaid contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner regarding condonation of delay and exemption from payment of income tax and from deduction of TDS have not been considered or appreciated by the 2nd respondent while passing the impugned order, which deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted to 2nd respondent for reconsideration a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ings. SUBMISSION 1. The findings made in the order No. ITBA/COM/F/17/202324/1059768055 Saka (1) passed by the Hon'ble Chief commissioner of Income tax, CCIT-01 dated 16.01.2024 shall be read as part of this submission. (Annexure-01) 2. The applicability of RFCTLARR 2013 is clearly mentioned in the section 02 of the Act, "Section 2. Application of Act.-(1) The provisions of this Act relating to land acquisition, compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement, shall apply, when the appropriate Government acquires land for its own use, hold and control, including for Public Sector Undertakings and for public purpose, and shall include the following purposes, namely- (a) for strategic purposes relating to naval, military, air force, and armed forces of the Union, including central paramilitary forces or any work vital to national security or defence of India or State police, safety of the people; or (b) for infrastructure projects, which includes the following, namely:- (i) all activities or items listed in the notification of the Government of India in the Department of Economic Affairs (Infrastructure Section)number 13/6/2009INF, dated the 27th March, 2012, excluding priva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... concluded that the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 is not applicable to the compensation received under The National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956) due to forth schedule of section 105(3) of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 7. But Section 105 (2) R/W Section 106 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013the provides the power to Central Government may, by notification, omit or add to any of the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule. The central government using the provisions of Section 105 (2) and section 106 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 central government as amended the 105 (3) and removed the schedule four by passing the Ordinance on 03.04.2015 through Gazette Notification, which makes clear that the provisions of third schedule is applicable to the enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule with effect from 1st January, 2015. These amendments make it clear that the compensation received under The National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956) which is mentioned in point 07 of the fourth schedule is also governed by RFCTLARR Act, 2013 with effect from 01.01.2015. (Annexure-02) 8. Letter issued by the Ministry Road transport and Highways dated 29.04.2015 it mentioned that all the awards of co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y to facts and law warranting interference in the present petition. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the following decisions:- (i) National Highways Authority of India v. P Nagaraju @ Chheluvaiah Civil Appeal No. 4671 of 2022 dated 11/07/2022 (ii) M/s Vishwanathan M v. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Others in W.P No. 3227 of 2020 dated 18/02/2020 (ker) (iii) Raghavan Nair v. ACIT 89 taxmann.com 212 (ker). (iv) Sharanappa v. Deputy Commissioner, Raichur (2023) 153 taxmann.com 685 (Karnataka) (31/05/2023) W.P No 201497 of 2023 (LA-RES) (v) Meharwade Vishnu v. CIT (TDS) in WP No. 103375 of 2017 and connected matters dated 12/04/2023. (vi) Vellara Francis Thomas v. Union of India (2024) 162 taxmann.com 68 (Karnataka) (27/02/2024). 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-revenue would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the following points arise for consideration in the present petition; (i) Whether Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... specified in the Fourth Schedule or shall apply with such exceptions or modifications that do not reduce the compensation or dilute the provisions of this Act relating to compensation or rehabilitation and resettlement as may be specified in the notification, as the case may be. (4) A copy of every notification proposed to be issued under sub-section (3), shall be laid in draft before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in disapproving the issue of the notification or both Houses agree in making any modification in the notification, the notification shall not be issued or, as the case may be, shall be issued only in such modified form as may be agreed upon by both the Houses of Parliament. 113. Power to remove difficulties.-(1) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Part, the Central Government may, by order, make such provisions or give such directions not inconsistent with the provisions of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3C, before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state the nature of their respective interest in such land. (5) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government- (6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act. (7) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining the amount under sub-section (1) or subsection (5), as the case may be, shall take into consideration- (a)the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under section 3A; (b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from other land; (c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....infrastructure amenities in accordance with the Third Schedule shall apply to the enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule with effect from 1-1-2015;' (ii) sub-section (4) shall be omitted." 7.7 Subsequently, on 03.04.2015, one more Ordinance known as "RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015" was promulgated, in which, clause 12 substituted Section 105(3) as hereunder:- "12. In the principal Act, in Section 105- (i) for sub-section (3), the following sub-section shall be substituted, namely- '(3) The provisions of this Act 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 the enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule with effect from 1-1-2015;' (ii) sub-section (4) shall be omitted." 7.8 Thereafter, the Hon'ble President promulgated one more Ordinance known as "RFCTLARR(Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015" dated 30.05.2015, in which, clause No.12 substituted Section 105(3) as under:- "12. In the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pecified in the Fourth Schedule to the RFCTLARR Act; And whereas, the RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 (4 of 2015) was promulgated on 3-4-2015 to give continuity to the provisions of the RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014; And whereas, the RFCTLARR (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015 (5 of 2015) was promulgated on 30-5-2015 to give continuity to the provisions of the RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 (4 of 2015); And whereas, the replacement Bill relating to the RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 (4 of 2015) was referred to the Joint Committee of the Houses for examination and report and the same is pending with the Joint Committee; And whereas, as per the provisions of Article 123 of the Constitution, the RFCTLARR (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015 (5 of 2015) shall lapse on the 31st day of August, 2015 and thereby placing the landowners at the disadvantageous position, resulting in denial of benefits of enhanced compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement to the cases of land acquisition under the 13 Acts specified in the Fourth Schedule to the RFCTLARR Act as extended to the landowners under the said Ordinance; And whereas, the Central Governm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion proceedings had been initiated under the NH Act, 1956 and were at different stages as on 31.12.2014. While there is no ambiguity regarding land acquisition proceedings initiated on or after 01.01.2015, this question assumes significance in view of the financial implications in respect of cases where the process of acquisition was at different stages as on 01.01.2015,. (ii) Section 26 of the RFCTLARR Act stipulates that "the date for determination of market value shall be the date on which the notification has been issued under Section 11 (corresponding to Section 3 A of the NH Act)". Same was the position under the 1894 Act. This is further fortified from the provisions contained in Section 69(2) of the RFCTLARR Act. As such, it is clarified that the relevant date of determination of market value of land is the date on which notification under Section 3 A of the National Highways Act, 1956 is published. (iii) By now, it is also a settled proposition that the First, Second and Third Schedule of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 shall be applicable to the NH Act, 1956 with effect from 01.01.2015. As such, the following is clarified: (a) All cases of Land acquisition where the Awards....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion from payment of income tax was not applicable to the subject compensation paid to the husband of the petitioner for acquisition of his land under the N.H.Act. 7.13 It is well settled that insofar as payment of compensation is concerned under different enactments, the discrimination is impermissible and there has to be parity between land losers in relation to compensation payable to different land losers whose lands have been acquired under different enactments as held by the Apex Court in the case of Nagpur Improvement Trust&Anr. vs. Vittal Rao& others - (1973)1 SCC 500, wherein the Constitution Bench held as under:- 27. What can be reasonable classification for the purpose of determining compensation if the object of the legislation is to compulsorily acquire land for public purposes? 28. It would not be disputed that different principles of compensation cannot be formulated for lands acquired on the basis that the owner is old or young, healthy or ill, tall or short, or whether the owner has inherited the property or built it with his own efforts, or whether the owner is politician or an advocate. Why is this sort of classification not sustainable? Because the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... one law acquiring lands for clearing slums, another for acquiring lands for Government buildings; one for acquiring lands in New Delhi and another for acquiring lands in Old Delhi. It was said that in many cases, the value of the land has increased not because of any effort by the owner but because of the general development of the city in which the land is situated. There is no doubt that this is so, but Article 14 prohibits the expropriation of the unearned increment of one owner while leaving his neighbour untouched. The neighbour could sell his land and reap the unearned increment. If the object of the legislation is to tax unearned increment it should be done throughout the State. The State cannot achieve this object piece meal by compulsory acquisition of land of some owners leaving others alone. If the object is to clear slums it cannot be done at the expense of the owners whose lands are acquired, unless as we have said the owners are directly benefited by the scheme. If the object is to build hospitals it cannot be done at the expense of the owners of the land which is acquired. The hospital, schools etc. must be built at the expense of the whole community. 7.14 T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oject the differences in the lands sought to be acquired under the two Acts. This argument puts the cart before the horse. It is one thing to say that the existing differences between persons and properties have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved and it is totally a different thing to say that the object of the Act itself created the differences. Assuming that the said proposition is sound, we cannot discover any differences in the people owning lands or in the lands on the basis of the object. The object is to acquire lands for housing schemes at a low price. For achieving that object, any land falling in any of the said categories can be acquired under the amending Act. So too, for a public purpose any such land can be acquired under the principal Act. We, therefore, hold that discrimination is writ large on the amending Act and it cannot be sustained on the principle of reasonable classification. We, therefore, hold that the amending Act clearly infringes Article 14 of the Constitution and is void." (emphasis supplied) 28. In Nagpur Improvement Trust [Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao, (1973) 1 SCC 500], this Court referred to the Nagpur Improvem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he purpose of determining compensation. The position is different when the owner of the land himself is the recipient of benefits from an improvement scheme, and the benefit to him is taken into consideration in fixing compensation. Can classification be made on the basis of the authority acquiring the land? In other words, can different principles of compensation be laid if the land is acquired for or by an Improvement Trust or Municipal Corporation or the Government? It seems to us that the answer is in the negative because as far as the owner is concerned it does not matter to him whether the land is acquired by one authority or the other. 30. It is equally immaterial whether it is one Acquisition Act or another Acquisition Act under which the land is acquired. If the existence of two Acts could enable the State to give one owner different treatment from another equally situated the owner who is discriminated against, can claim the protection of Article 14." (emphasis supplied) 29. Both, P. Vajravelu Mudaliar [P. Vajravelu Mudaliar v. LAO, (1965) 1 SCR 614 : AIR 1965 SC 1017] and Nagpur Improvement Trust [Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao, (1973) 1 SCC 500] clinch t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land; *** 9. Notice to persons interested.-(1) The Collector shall then cause public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him. (2) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land so needed, and shall require all persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent before the Collector at a time and place therein mentioned (such time not being earlier than fifteen days after the date of publication of the notice), and to state the nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests, and their objections (if any) to the measurements made under Section 8. The Collector may in any case require such statement to be made in writing and signed by the party or his agent. (3) The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier (if any) of such land and on all such persons kn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n shall be substituted, namely- '(3) The provisions of this Act 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 the enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule with effect from 1-1-2015;' (ii) sub-section (4) shall be omitted." 47. It is only when this Ordinance lapsed that the Notification dated 28-8-2015 was then made under Section 113 of the 2013 Act. This notification is important and states as follows: "MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER New Delhi, 28-8-2015 S.O. 2368(E).-Whereas, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013) (hereinafter referred to as "the RFCTLARR Act") came into effect from 1-1-2014; And whereas, sub-section (3) of Section 105 of the RFCTLARR Act provided for issuing of notification to make the provisions of the Act relating to the determination of the compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement applicable to cases of land acquisition under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on (1) of Section 113 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), the Central Government hereby makes the following Order to remove the aforesaid difficulties, namely: 1. (1) This Order may be called the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2015. (2) It shall come into force with effect from the 1st day of September, 2015. 2. The provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, 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. [F. No. 13011/01/2014-LRD] K.P. Krishnan, Addl. Secy." 48. It is thus clear that the Ordinance as well as the notification have applied the principle contained in Nagpur Improvement Trust [Nagpur Improvement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is Court held : (SCC paras 5-7) "5. The only point agitated before us by the learned Solicitor General is that in para 23 of the impugned judgment [RLF Industries Ltd. v. NHAI, 2011 SCC OnLine P&H 1687 : (2011) 1 ICC 854] of the High Court, it has been held that landowners would "henceforth" be entitled to solatium and interest as envisaged by the provisions of Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the ultimate paragraph of the impugned judgment it has, however, been mentioned that in respect of all acquisitions made under the National Highways Act, 1956, solatium and interest in terms similar to those contained in Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will have to be paid. 6. The learned Solicitor General has pointed out that there is an apparent inconsistency in the judgment, which needs to be clarified. It has also been submitted by the learned Solicitor General that the order of the High Court should be clarified to mean that the issue of grant of interest and solatium should not be allowed to be reopened without any restriction or reference to time. The learned Solicitor General has particularly submitted that to understand the order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndia. We therefore declare that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act relating to solatium and interest contained in Sections 23(1-A) and (2) and interest payable in terms of Section 28 proviso will apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act. Consequently, the provision of Section 3-J is, to this extent, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, declared to be unconstitutional. Accordingly, appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 9599 of 2019 is dismissed. 7.15 The aforesaid judgment in Tarsem Singh's case supra was followed by the Apex Court in the case of National Highways Authorities of India vs. P.Nagaraju alias Cheluvaiah & Anr. - (2022) 15 SCC 1, wherein it was held as under:- 24. On this aspect, it would be appropriate to take note of the decision rendered by this Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh [Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2019) 9 SCC 304 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 364] relied on by both sides, wherein it has been held as hereunder : (SCC pp. 345-46, paras 51-52) "51. We were also referred to an order in Sunita Mehra v. Union of India [Sunita Mehra v. Union of India, (2019) 17 SCC 672 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 537], in whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (came into force on 1-1-2014), which Act has been made applicable to acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956 by virtue of notification/order issued under the provisions of the 2013 Act.' 52. There is no doubt that the learned Solicitor General, in the aforesaid two orders, has conceded the issue raised in these cases. This assumes importance in view of the plea of Shri Divan that the impugned judgments [Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 6036], [Jang Bahadur v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 6034], [Union of India v. Abhinav Cotspin Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 19319] should be set aside on the ground that when the arbitral awards did not provide for solatium or interest, no Section 34 petition having been filed by the landowners on this score, the Division Bench judgments that are impugned before us ought not to have allowed solatium and/or interest. Ordinarily, we would have acceded to this plea, but given the fact that the Government itself is of the view that solatium and interest should be granted even in cases that arise between 1997 and 2015, in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. [F. No. 13011/01/2014-LRD] K.P. Krishnan, Addl. Secy." 7.16 As held by the Apex Court in Tarsem Singh's case and Nagaraju's case supra, the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act have been made applicable to acquisition under the N.H.Act, 1956. It is therefore clear that Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act exempting levy / payment of income tax on compensation would also be applicable to acquisition of land and compensation paid / payable under the N.H.Act and consequently, the impugned order passed by the respondent deserves to be set aside on this ground also. 7.17 The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) issued a Circular bearing No.36/2016 dated 25.10.2016 clarifying that compensation received in respect of award or agreement which has been exempted from levy of income tax under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act shall also not be taxable under the provision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not be taxable under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 even if there is no specific provision of exemption for such compensation in the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The above may be brought to the notice of all concerned. 5. Hindi version of the Order shall follow. Sd/- (Rohit Garg) 7.18 The said issue came up for consideration before this Court in the case of M/s.Sri. Balaji Corporation Solutions & others vs. Union of India and others - W.P.No.43206/2018 & connected matters dated 21.04.2022. In the said judgment, this Court framed the following points for consideration; (i) Whether the writ petitions are maintainable in view of the remedy of seeking enhancement of compensation before the reference court being available to the petitioners, who have already sought for such reference? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 OR under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in respect of their lands acquired pursuant to preliminary notification issued after 01.01.2014 under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966?....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ital asset. Hence, capital gains arising from the transfer. (including compulsory acquisition) of such agricultural land is not taxable. Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 inserted Sec.10(37) in the Act from 01.04.2005 to provide specific exemption to the capital gains arising to an Individual or a HUF from compulsory acquisition of an agricultural land situated in specified urban-limit subject to fulfillment of certain conditions for specified urban 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 nonagricultural land in the matter of providing exemption from income-tax under the RFCTLARR Act the exemption provided under Sec.96 of the RFCTLARR Act is wider in scope than the tax exemption provided under t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It is profitable to extract Section 10(37) of the I.T.Act, which reads as follows:- 10. Income not included in total income: In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included- (37) in the case of an assessee, being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, any income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" arising from the transfer of agricultural land, where- (i) such land is situate in any area referred to in item (a) or item (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2; (ii) such land, during the period of two years immediately preceding, the date of transfer, was being used for agricultural purposes by such Hindu undivided family or individual or a parent of his; (iii) such transfer is by way of compulsory acquisition under any law, or a transfer the consideration for which is determined or approved by the Central Government or the Reserve Bank of India; (iv) such income has arisen from the compensation or consideration for such transfer received by such assessee on or a after the 1st day of April, 2004. Explanation - For the purposes of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."award or agreement made as per this Act" and therefore, in view of the express language employed by the legislature, the benefit of exemption from payment of income tax or tax deduction at source (TDS) cannot be claimed by the petitioners. The said contentions urged by the revenue cannot be accepted for more than one reason:- (i) Firstly, while dealing with Point No.2with regard to the question as to whether the compensation was payable to the petitioners under the said Act of 2013 or under the said Act of 1894, I have already come to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to compensation under the said Act of 2013. (ii) Secondly, having regard to the aims and objects of the said Act of 2013 which is a beneficial piece of legislation, so long as compensation itself is made payable under the said Act of 2013, it makes no difference whether award or agreement is made "under the Act" or "as per the Act". (iii) Thirdly, the material on record discloses that undisputedly, all awards made and compensation paid by the respondents in relation to KIADB acquisitions after 01.01.2014 are under the said Act of 2013 by granting/giving complete exemption from payment of incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the said Act of 2013 which has been made applicable to KIADB acquisitions in view of the amendment to Section 30 of the KIAD Act w.e.f 05.04.2022. 11.7 Viewed from this angle also, though the question as to whether the said amendment to Section 30 is prospective or retrospective has not been gone into in the present order and the same is left open to be decided in an appropriate case, in the light of the undisputed fact that the respondents would necessarily have to pass fresh/modified awards and do all such necessary acts, deeds and things etc., in favour of the petitioners under the said Act of 2013, Section 96 of the said Act of 2013, CBDT Circular dated 25.10.2016, Section 194-LA and Section 10(37) of the I.T.Act would become applicable to the petitioners who would be entitled to the benefit of exemption from payment of income tax and from tax deduction at source(TDS) in respect of the awards and compensation in their favour. 11.8 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the contentions urged on behalf of the revenue cannot be accepted. I am therefore of the considered view that all awards and compensation payable / paid subsequent to 01.01.2014 when the said A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in respect of acquisition made under Act, 2013 and not under KIADB Act, 1966. Therefore, he submits the benefit of exemption cannot be extended. He also refers to provisions of Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 40. As rightly taken note of by the Learned Single Judge that in the background of upholding the contention of the respondents/ writ petitioners of their entitlement of compensation under the provisions of Act, 2013, the entire benefit including the benefit under Section 96 of the said Act, 2013 has to be extended in its entirety. More so, as already noted even BMRCL, which is the appellant in the connected matter challenging the relief granted in favour of respondent/writ petitioners for determination of their claim for compensation under Act, 2013, itselfhas issued package compensation as per Annexure-H and General Compensation has been awarded as per Annexure-H 1 taking into consideration the provisions of Act, 2013. Therefore, contention of appellant cannot be accepted, to say that since the exemption of payment of Income Tax Act and deduction of income tax at source on the compensation payable against the acquisition of land only if it is made under Act, 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecorded by the respondent deserves to be set aside. 7.24 Insofar as the findings recorded by the respondent in relation to the CBDT Circular No.36/2016 dated 25.10.2016 and applicability of Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act is concerned, for the reason mentioned above, even the said finding recorded by the respondent in the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 7.25 A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the respondent has misconstrued and misinterpreted the various statutory provisions, Ordinances, Orders, Notifications, Circulars etc., as well as the judgment of the Apex Court and this Court relied upon by the petitioner and has rejected the application by assigning wholly untenable reasons warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 7.26. Points 1 and 2 are accordingly answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent-revenue by holding that Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, is applicable to compensation payable for land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 and consequently, compensation payable for acquisition of land under the Na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... keeping in view the dictionary meaning thereof and legal conspectus attending thereto. For the said purpose, another well known principle, namely, that a person cannot take advantage of his own wrong, may also have to be borne in mind. Compulsion to pay any unjust dues per se would cause hardship. But a question as to whether the default in payment of the amount was due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee, also bears consideration. 12. In the case of R. Seshammal (supra), the Madras High Court was pleased to observe as under (page 187 of 237 ITR): "This is hardly the manner in which the State is expected to deal with the citizens, who in their anxiety to comply with all the requirements of the Act pay monies as advance tax to the State, even though the monies were not actually required to be paid by them and there after seek refund of the monies so paid by mistake after the proceedings under the Act are dropped by the authorities concerned. The State is not entitled to plead the hyper technical plea of limitation in such a situation to avoid return of the amounts. Section 119 of the Act vests ample power in the Board to render justice in such a situation. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ic approach should be eschewed and a justice oriented should be adopted. It also observed that a party should not be made to suffer on account of technicalities. 23. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that an acceptable explanation was offered by the petitioner and a case of genuine hardship was made out. The refusal by the Central Board of Direct Taxes to condone the delay was a result of adoption of an unduly restrictive approach. The Central Board of Direct Taxes appears to have proceeded on the basis that the delay was deliberate, when from the explanation offered by the petitioner, it is clear that the delay was neither deliberate nor on account of culpable negligence or any mala fides. Therefore, the impugned order dated May 16, 2006, made by the Central Board of Direct Taxes refusing to condone the delay in filing Date of Order 24-10-2017 W.P.No.54672/2015 Dr.(Smt.)Sujatha Ramesh Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and another, the return of income for the assessment year 1997-98 is liable to be set aside. 8.2 In the instant case, a perusal of the material on record, in particular the undisputed fact that the petitioner's husband being unable ....