Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX versus SHRI T.A.S.CHELLAYYA, MADRAS.

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri T.A.S.Chellayya, Madras. - TAX CASE (Referemce) No.224 of 1999. [2002] RD-TN 968 (10 December 2002)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS.



DATED: 10/12/2002

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN.

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN.

TAX CASE (Referemce) No.224 of 1999.

The Commissioner of Income Tax,

Tamil Nadu II, Madras. ..... Applicant -Vs-

Shri T.A.S.Chellayya, Madras. ..... Respondent. Reference arising out of the order dated 30.6.1985 made in I.T.A. No.2303/Mds/1986 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras Bench 'C', at the instance of the Revenue. For Applicant :: Mr.T.Ravikumar,

Jr.Standing Counsel

For Income Tax.

For Respondent :: No Appearance.

:JUDGMENT



(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN,J).

In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law for our consideration:-

1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and had valid materials to hold that the interest amount received by the assessee in respect of additional compensation awarded by Court, should be assessed on accrual basis only, and accordingly, the intereswt due for the year alone should be assessed for the assessment year 1982-83?

2.The assessee is an individual. Certain lands belonging to the assessee as co-owner along with his brothers were acquired by Government of Tamil Nadu in 1966. The assessee received additional compensation in the year 1981 and also the interest on the compensation. The Income Tax Officer was of the view that the entire interest received in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1982-83 must be assessed and accordingly, assessed the entire interest amount of Rs.1,08,755/- in the assessment year 1982-83.

3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not agree with the views of the Income Tax Officer and directed the Income Tax Officer to compute the income attributable to the previous only and restricted the amount of interest taxable for that assessment year. As against the order of the Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals), the Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal.

4.The Tribunal following a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T.N.K.Govindarajulu Chetty (165 I.T.R.231), has held that the interest awarded by the Land Acquisition Court should be assessed on accrual basis only and the interest due for the assessment year 1982-83 can only be assessed for the assessment year 1982-83. The Revenue filed the Reference Application, which was dismissed by the Tribunal and on the basis of the directions of this Court, the question of law stated earlier has been referred to us by the Tribunal.

5.Notice was ordered and it was served on the respondent. Mr. T. Ravi Kumar, learned junior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue fairly submits that the issue raised in the question is covered against the Revenue by the decisions of the Supreme Court in " Rama Bai .vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh" (181 I.T.R.400) and " K.S.Krishna Rao .vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh" (181 I.T.R.408), wherein the Supreme Court following its earlier ruling in "C.I.T. .vs. Govindarajulu Chetty (165 I.T.R.321) held that where the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act was enhanced by the order of the Court on a reference under Section 18 of the Act or on further appeals, the interest on enhanced compensation cannot be taxed all in a lumpsum as having accrued on the date on which the Court passed the order for enhanced compensation. The Supreme Court held that the interest received has to be spread over on an accrual basis right from the date of delivery of possession till the date of order of the court on a time basis. The learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the above two decisions as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in "C.I.T. .vs. Govindarajulu Chetty (165 I.T.R.321) will squarely apply. No other point has been urged by the learned counsel for the Revenue. Following the said decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Rama Bai (181 I.T.R.400) and K.S.Krishna Rao (181 I.T.R.408) cited supra, we answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

Index:Yes

Website:Yes

nyr

To

1.The Assistant Registrar,

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,

Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar,

Chennai.600 090 (Five copies with records).

2.The Secretary,

Central Board of Direct Taxes,

New Delhi. (Three copies).

3.The Commissioner of Income Tax,

Tamil Nadu II, Madras.

4.The Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals VI) Madras.34.




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.