JUDGMENT
Puttaswamy, J.
1. In these references made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore (“Tribunal”), at the instance of the Revenue has referred the following common question of law for the opinion of this court but in respect of different assessees.
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner directing the Income-tax Officer to exclude the capital gains arising from the transfer of agricultural lands from the assessments ?
2. In order to appreciate the common question referred to us, it is necessary to notice the facts as found by the Tribunal.
3. The assessees in these cases, as owners of different pieces of lands situated within 8 kms. of the Corporation of the City of the Bangalore, received different amounts as compensation from the Government on their acquisition by the Government.
4. In their separate but individual returns filed before the Sixth Income-tax Officers, Circle-III, Bangalore, under the Act, the assesses claimed that the compensation received by them was from agricultural lands or lands used for agricultural purposes and was, therefore, not chargeable to capital gains tax under the Act. On January 28, 1980, the Income-tax Officer by separate but identical orders completed the assessments, rejected the claims of the assessees and brought the receipts to capital gains tax under the Act. Aggrieved by the said orders made by the Income-tax Officer, the assessees filed separate but identical appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore, who be separate but identical order made on March 31, 1982, allowed them. Aggrieved by the orders made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Revenue filed second appeals before the Tribunal in which the assessees also filed cross-objections. On November 25, 1983, the Tribunal by a common order dismissed the appeals and the cross-objections. Hence, these reference.
5. Sri K. Srinivasan, learned senior standing counsel for the Income-tax Department, appearing for the Revenue, contends that the Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were in error in treating that section 2(4)(iii) of the Act which subjected agricultural lands referred to therein to capital gains tax was inoperative in the State of Karnataka and that, in any event, this court, on upholding its validity on March 24m 1986, in W. P. Nos. 4309 of 1981 (B. S. Jayachandra v. ITO ([1986] 161 ITR 190), the assessees were clearly chargeable to capital gains tax under the Act.
6. Sri K. B. Basavarajan, learned counsel for the assessee, in ourjopinion, rightly does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by Sri Srinivasan.
7. Both the Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in deciding the question in favour of the assesses, have followed a Division Bench ruling of the Bombay High Court in Manubai A. Sheth v. N. D. Nirgudkar ([1981] 128 ITR 187). But in W. P. No. 4309 of 1981 (B. S. Jayachandra v. ITO ([1986] 161 ITR 190) dissenting from the view expressed by the High Court of Bombay in that very case, we have upheld the validity of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act.
8. On the facts, there is no dispute that if section 2(14)(iii) is valid, the assessments made by the Income-tax Officer were also valid in all respects.
9. On this count, upholding the validity of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, it follows that the Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were in error in canceling the assessments made by the Income-tax Officer against the assessees.
10. We are somewhat surprised that the Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should have held that section 2(14)(iii) of the Act was not on the statute book on the basis of a ruling of the Bombay High Court which had its operation only in the State of Maharashtra. In Patil Vijaykumar v. Union of India ([1985] 151 ITR 48 (Kar)), we have clarified the legal position of declaration of an all India Act buy a different High Court. We do hope and trust the Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner will follow our ruling in Patil Vijaykumar’s case ([1985] 151 ITR 48).
11. In the light of our above discussion, we answer the questions referred to us in these cases in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessees. But, in the circumstances of the cases, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.