SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1451

1996(7) Supreme 650
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy, Faizan Uddin & G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Bikram Singh & Ors. -Appellants
versus
The Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 12497-12500 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 13174-177 of 1995)
Decided on 12-9-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : K.G. Bhagat, S.S. Dahiya, Kamal Baid and G.G. Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents : R.R. Misra, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Lakshmi Iyengar and Anil Srivastava, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Interest received as income on the delayed payment of compensation determined u/s 28 or 31 of the Land Acquisition Act is a taxable event, it is a revenue receipt exigible to tax u/s 4 of the Income Tax Act.

Headnote:Income Tax Act, 1961-Sections 4 & 5-Delayed interest on the compensation paid u/s 28 or 31 of the Land Acquisition Act-It is revenue receipt exigible to tax under Income Tax Act-However assessee might be entitled to spread over the income for the period for which payment came to be made.

       Held : But the question is: whether the interest on delayed payment on the acquisition of the immovable property under the Acquisition Act would not be exigible to income-tax? It is seen that this Court has consistently taken the view that it is a revenue receipt, The amended definition of "interest" was not intended to exclude the revenue receipt of interest on delayed payment of compensation from taxability. Once it is construed to be a revenue receipt, necessarily, unless there is an exemption under the appropriate provisions of the Act, the revenue receipt is exigible to tax. The amendment is only to bring within its tax net, income received from the transaction covered under the definition of interest. It would mean that the interest received as income on the delayed payment of the compensation determined under Section 28 or 31 of the Acquisition Act is a taxable event. Therefore, we hold that it is a revenue receipt exigible to tax under Section 4 of the Income-Tax Act. Section 194A of the Act has no application for the purpose of this case as it encompasses deduction of the income at the source. However the appellants are entitled to spread over the income for the period for which payment came to be made so as to compute the income for assessing tax for the relevant accounting year. (Para 7)

       

ORDER

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana made in CWP Nos. 1558/91 and batch on December 13, 1991. The admitted facts are that the appellants had received notice on July 31, 1991 for payment of income-tax on the delayed interest amount recovered under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, the "LA Act"]. Calling that notice in question, they filed writ petitions. The High Court relying upon decisions of this Court dismissed the petitions with a finding as under :

"This now leads us to the consideration of the question whether interest paid on the amount, of compensation for compulsory acquisition of land is "income and, therefore, taxable under the Act. Matters which have to be considered for awarding compensation for compulsory acquisition of land are enumerated in section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. While sub-section (2) of that section provides for payment of certain solatium for acquisition of compulsory nature, interest is not included as an item of compensation. Instead, interest is payable by force of section 34 of the Act, if compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land. By force of section 28 also, the court, on a reference if it enhances the compensation offered by the Collector, is entitled to award interest on the amount of such enhanced compensation. Section 28 also provides that the Court, on a reference, shall award interest on the amount of enhanced compensation. It will thus appear from the text of section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act that interest is not payable as compensation but is paid if the compensation is not paid before taking possession of the land. Interest is thus payable because of the deprivation of the possession of the land before compensation for compulsory acquisition of that land is paid. This position is now well-settled. In Dr. Shamlal Narula v. CIL (1964) 53 ITR 151 SC; AIR 1964 SC 1878, the observation is that interest has to be paid on the amount awarded from the time the Collector takes possession until the amount is paid or deposited. Interest is not an item of compensation. Nor is it consideration for acquisition of land. Payment of interest has been provided for separately under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. This is so because interest is paid after the compensation has been determined. It is something in addition to the capital amount though it arises out of it. It has expressly been held that interest under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act is not compensation paid to the owner for depriving him of his right to possession of the land acquired, but is given to him for the deprivation of the use of the money representing the compensation for the land acquired. This interest under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act is thus paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income-tax Act. The Supreme Court expressly distinguished the decision of the Privy Council in Inglewood Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd. v. New Brunswick Electric Power Commission, AIR 1928 PC 287. This decision of the Privy Council as also the decision in Abhay Singh Surana v. Secretary, Ministry of Communication, AIR 1987 SC 2177 are authorities only for the proposition that interest is payable on the amount of compensation determined either under the Land Acquisition Act or under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. Neither of these authorities considered the question of exigibility of such interest to income-tax. This principle in Narula s case (1964) 53 ITR 151 (SC) has subsequently been applied by the Supreme Court in a later decision in T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT, (1967) 66 ITR 465 also, where the property was acquired under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act which did not make any specific provision for the award
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top