TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 915
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cause for the delay in filing this appeal. However, learned DR for the revenue, opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the affidavit as well the delay condonation, application, I am of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. I, accordingly, condone the delay. 3. On merit, Learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted that the issue involved in the appeal of the assessee is that assessee had received interest on enhanced compensation of Rs. 18,51,082/- on account of compulsory acquisition of agricultural land, which is exempted under section 10(37) of the Income tax Act 1961. However, assessing officer treated it as taxable income of the assessee and made an addition of Rs. 18,51,082/- instead of exempt income, even though such interest is in the nature of compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land, however, it is eligible for exemption under Section 10(37) of the Act. 4. However, learned DR for the revenue, on the other hand, submitted that interest on compensation is chargeable to tax under the head "income from other sources",....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ional High Court's decision in the case of Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai Vs. ITO(supra) would be applicable, as it is a judgment of jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat. However, the judgment relied on by the ld.Pr.CIT in the case of Manjeet Singh (HUF) Vs. UOI (supra) is related to Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, which is not a jurisdictional High Court, for us. Therefore, judicial discipline mandates that we suppose to follow the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court. Thus, we note that the judgement of jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai Vs. ITO [2016] 70 taxmann.com 45 (Gujarat),(supra) is clearly applicable to us, wherein following ratio was laid down by the Hon`ble Court: "6. The facts as emerging from the record are that the petitioner's agricultural lands came to be acquired under the provisions of the Act of 1894 for the public purpose of the Ozat-2 Irrigation Scheme. The award passed by the Collector came to be challenged by the petitioner before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh (hereinafter referred to as the "Reference Court"), who by an order dated 20th March, 2011 awarded additional co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or solatium. It is an additional compensation designed to compensate the owner of the land for the rise in price during the pendency of the land acquisition proceedings. It is a measure to offset the effect of inflation and the continuous rise in the value of properties. Therefore, the amount payable under section 23(1-A) of the Act is an additional compensation in respect to the acquisition and has to be reckoned as part of the market value of the land. The court further held that the award of interest under section 28 of the 1894 Act is discretionary. Section 28 applies when the amount originally awarded has been paid or deposited and when the court awards excess amount. In such cases, interest on that excess alone is payable. Section 28 empowers the court to award interest on the excess amount of compensation awarded by it over the amount awarded by the Collector. The compensation awarded by the court includes the additional compensation awarded under section 23(1-A) and the solatium under section 23(2) of the said Act. This award of interest is not mandatory but is left to the discretion of the court. It was further held that section 28 is applicable only in respect of the exce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the award. 50. It is true that "interest" is not compensation. It is equally true that Section 45(5) of the 1961 Act refers to compensation. But as discussed hereinabove, we have to go by the provisions of the 1894 Act which awards "interest" both as an accretion in the value of the lands acquired and interest for undue delay. Interest under Section 28 unlike interest under Section 34 is an accretion to the value, hence it is a part of enhanced compensation or consideration which is not the case with interest under Section 34 of the 1894 Act. So also additional amount under Section 23(1-A) and solatium under Section 23(2) of the 1961 Act forms part of enhanced compensation under Section 45(5)(b) of the 1961 Act." Thus, the court has held that interest under section 28 of the Act of 1894 is an accretion to compensation and forms part of the compensation and, therefore, exigible to tax under section 45(5) of the Act. Such decision was, therefore, rendered in favour of the revenue. 8. The above referred decision in the case of Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) came to be followed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Govindbhai Mamaiya [2014] 52 taxmann.com 270/367 ITR ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anding anything to the contrary contained in section 145, interest received by an assessee on compensation or on enhanced compensation, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be the income of the year in which it is received. Clause (viii) of sub-section (2) of section 56 of the I.T. Act provides for income by way of interest received on compensation or on enhanced compensation referred to in clause (b) of section 145A which is chargeable as income from other sources. The first respondent Income Tax Officer seeks to tax the interest received by the petitioner under section 28 of the Act of 1894 as income from other sources under section 56(2)(viii) read with section 145A(b) of the I.T. Act. In the opinion of this court, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra), the interest received under section 28 of the Act of 1894 would not fall within the ambit of the expression "interest" as envisaged under section 145A(b) of the I.T. Act, inasmuch as, the Supreme Court in the above decision has held that interest under section 28 of the Act of 1894 is not in the nature of interest but is an accretion to the compensation and, therefore, for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted as income from other sources, deserves to be rejected. 11. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the first respondent that the above decision has been rendered prior to the substitution of section 145A of the I.T. Act by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1st April, 2010, and hence, would have no applicability to the facts of the present case. The scope and effect of the substitution (with effect from 1st April, 2010) of section 145A, as also amendment made in section 56(2) by Act 33 of 2009 have been elaborated in the following portion of the departmental circular No. 5/2010, dated 3.6.2010, as follows: "Rationalizing the provisions for taxation of interest received on delayed compensation or on enhanced compensation.- 46.1 The existing provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, provide that income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" or "Income from other sources", shall be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Rama Bai v. CIT (1990) 84 CTR (SC) 164 :(1990) 181 ITR 400 (SC) has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve any benefit from the observations made by the Supreme Court as quoted therein. In Hari Kishan's case (supra), the Punjab and Haryana High Court has placed reliance upon its earlier decision in the case of Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh (supra). In Bir Singh (HUF)'s case (supra), the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that under the scheme of the 1894 Act, interest under section 34 is part of compensation while interest under section 28 is not the interest which partakes the character of compensation and is treated differently. In the opinion of this court, the above view of the Punjab and Haryana High Court is contrary to what has been held in the decision of the Supreme Court in Ghanshyam (HUF)'s case (supra) wherein it has been held that interest under section 28 unlike interest under section 34 is an accretion to the value, hence it is a part of enhanced compensation or consideration which is not the case with interest under section 34 of the 1894 Act. This court is in agreement with the view adopted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jagmal Singh's case (supra), which has been extensively referred to in paragraph 4.1 above. The decision of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uiries, as we have noted above, the assessing officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 16.02.2022, which is placed at PB Page no.18. Therefore, respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai Vs. ITO(supra), we note that there is no any case of lack of inquiry on the part of the assessing officer, and the assessing officer has passed order as per the judgement of jurisdictional High Court cited (supra). Besides, the original compensation and enhanced compensation and interest thereon have already been suffered taxation in the hands of one of the co-owners, therefore, there is no loss to the revenue. Now, to tax such compensation/ enhanced compensation, and interest thereon, in the hands of other co-owner, would be tantamount to double taxation. Therefore, the order passed by the assessing officer is sustainable in the eyes of law. 14. We note that the assessee had filed return of income, declaring total income of Rs. 10,26,350/-. The assessee is earning share in profit, interest and remuneration from a partnership firm, Parmeshwar Impex, capital gain and income from other sources. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Supreme Court, Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court and the Jurisdictional Bench of the Hon'ble ITAT ( supra), the assessing officer had held that the interest awarded as per section 28 of the Act, is part of full value of consideration received on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land, hence, the provisions of section 56(2) (viii) r.w.s. 145B of the Act are not applicable in the case. 15. Subsequently, the Ld. Pr. CIT-1, has issued a notice u/s. 263 of the Act, alleging that the assessing officer has not properly verified/ examined the facts of the case and the issue under consideration.However, we note that assessing officer had made all necessary inquiry and verification in respect of the interest under consideration and taken a judicious judgment relying upon the binding law as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court and the Jurisdictional Bench of the Hon'ble ITAT (supra). The assessing officer has taken a plausible view, duly supported by the law settled by the Judicial pronouncements, holding that the interest awarded as per section 28 of the Act, is part of full value of consideration received on compulsory acquisition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sis, meaning to stand by decided cases, rests upon the principle that law by which men are governed should be fixed, define and known, and that, when the law is declared by Court of competent jurisdiction authorised to construe it." Further, the Doctrine of Stare Decisis is applicable in case under Income Tax Act, 1961, also as held in CIT vs. Thana Electricity Supply Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR 727 (Bom.) and Consolidated Pneumatic Tool Co. (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (1994) 209 ITR 277 (Bom.). We note that Ld. Pr. CIT has passed impugned order u/s. 263 of the Act, relying upon order of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Manjeet Singh (HUF) vs. Union of India (Supra). However, with due respect, the above cited decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court is not binding on the Authorities, falling under jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. Therefore, assessing officer was right in following the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai (supra). Therefore, we note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down law through judgment in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (....