NAURATA RAM Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the year 1976, the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, acquired agricultural land of various persons including the petitioner for implementing the 100 acre development scheme. The compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dt. 20th September, 1974, was enhanced by the Land Acquisition Tribunal by different orders passed by it on 23rd April, 1986, 9th September, 1987 and 28th May, 1988. The petitioner and the improvement Trust have filed writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal. The same are pending adjudication before this Court.

(2.) For the asst. yr. 1991-92, the petitioner filed his return and claimed that the amount of Rs. 16,40,160 is not liable to be taxed in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT V/s. Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd., 1986 161 ITR 524 (SC). However, the assessing authority did not accept the contention and assessed Rs. 9,90,165 out of the total amount of compensation as interest on income. On appeal the CIT(A), Ludhiana, deleted aforementioned addition made by the assessing authority. Soon thereafter, the respondent No. 3 issued notice under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 for reassessment for the years 1983-84 to 1990-91. This notice has been challenged by the petitioner in CWP No. 2513 of 1995 which is pending hearing before the High Court. For the asst. yr. 1993-94, the ITO assessed the balance amount of Rs. 6,69,204 payable to the petitioner as compensation under s. 143(3) in the status of HUF. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide his order dt. 17th August, 1994. Further appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the assessing authority and the CIT(A) is pending adjudication.

(3.) On 15th January, 1996, the petitioner applied for refund of the amount in view of the order dt. 5th January, 1996 passed by the CIT(A). His plea for refund has been rejected by the respondents and, therefore, the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of the High Court for issuance of a writ to quash the impugned orders and also to direct the respondents to refund the amount to him. The petitioner has relied on the provisions of ss. 240 and 241 of the Act and the judgments of the Supreme Court [sic-this Court] in Leader Valves Pvt. Ltd. V/s. CIT & Anr., 1987 167 ITR 542(P&H) and Hansa Agencies Pvt. Ltd. V/s. CIT & Ors., 1988 169 ITR 322. The respondents have opposed the plea of the petitioner by asserting that the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dt. 5th January, 1996 is pending before the Tribunal and the decision not to accept the application for refund has been taken on the basis of the report dt. 4th March, 1996 submitted by the ITO, Ward-II(4), Ludhiana. The respondents have stated that the refund has been refused solely with the object of protecting the interest of the Revenue.