Case: Chandroji Rao Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M.P. Nagpur

1. These appeals by special leave from a common judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court arise out of reference made by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal relating to the assessment years 1956-57, 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1961-62.2. The appellant who is the assessee was a jagirdar of the erstwhile Gwalior State. By the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagir Act, 1951, hereinafter called the "Act", the jagirs were abolished with effect from December 4, 1952. Under section 8 of the Act compensation was payable to him in accordance with the principles laid down in Schedule I. Under sub-s. (2) of that section the compensation payable became due as from the date of the resumption of the jagir. Simple interest was payable at the rate of 21/2 per cent per annum from that date upto the date of payment on the amount of compensation which was payable within a period of ten years in annual instalments. The assessee maintained that the amount of interest formed part of the compensation and constituted a capital receipt. The Income-tax Officer held against the assessee and included the interest in his income. The appellate Assistant Commissioner took the same view. The appellate tribunal however, held that the amount of interest was a capital receipt and could not be included in the assessees income. The following question was referred to the High Court by the tribunalon the facts and in the circumstances of the case the interest that was received on the amount of compensation paid for resumption of the assessees jagir was a capital receiptHigh Court answered the question in the negative and against the assessee.

Reasoning:
In our opinion the High Court rightly rejected these contentions.Section 8 (2) clearly provided that compensation shall be due as from the date of resumption. Thus the amount of compensation became ascertained and payable from the date of resumption. The provision for interest was made simply because the compensation was to be paid in ten annualclear distinction has been made between the compensation payable under sub-s. (1) and the interest which is payable under sub-s. (2). The compensation has to be determined in accordance with the principles laid down in Schedule I.That Schedule indicates that the determination of compensation had nothing to do with the payment of interest. The marginal heading cannot control the interpretation of the words of the section particularly when the language of the section is clear and unambiguous.This court has held in Dr. Sham Lal Narula v. Commr. of Income-tax, Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Patiala, 53 ITR 151  = (AIR 1964 SC 1878 ) that the statutory interest paid under S. 34 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 on the amount of compensation awarded for the period from the date of Collector has taken possession of the land compulsorily acquired is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation and is, therefore, a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income-tax Act.As has been pointed out in that decision the legislature has expressly used the word interest with its well-known connotation in the relevant statutory provision and it is therefore reasonable to give that expression the natural meaning it bears. The same principle would be applicable to the present case. It is apparent that under S. 8 of the Act the compensation amount as determined in accordance with the principles laid down in Schedule I became due to the jagirdar from the date of resumption. Since the entire amount was not to be paid on the date of the resumption but was to be paid by instalment extending over ten years a provision had to be made for the payment of interest in sub-s. (2).The amount of interest was thus given to the jagirdar for being kept out of the compensation amount for the aforesaid period. The legislature being well aware of the distinction between compensation and interest thereon employed clear language which leaves no room for doubt that under sub-s. (2) interest was payable in its well-known and well-understood sense and it could never form a part of the compensation money.