9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 978X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the facts circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in law in deleting the addition in view of decision pronounced by Jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court in the case of Manjeet Singh, HUF Vs CIT of CWP No. 15506 of 2013 dated 14.01.2014 , Naresh Kumar Jain and others Vs State of Haryana and others of CWP No. 14728 of 2017 dated 12/07/2017 and Puneet Singh Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Kamal in ITA- 132-2018 (O M) dated 19.11.2018. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has clearly stated that interest received u/s 28 of Land Acquisition Act , 1894 is taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 57(iv) and 145A of the Income Tax Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) has erred in law by treating the interest received u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as Non-taxable. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manjeet Singh HUF Vs. CIT has already upheld the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana by dismissing the SLP filed against the High Court Decision the interest received u/s 28 and 34 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are taxable. 3. In this case, Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed that he is an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts the claimant to withdraw against security or otherwise the enhanced compensation (which is in dispute), the same is liable to be taxed under Section 45(5) of the 1961 Act. This is the scheme of Section 45(5) and Section 155(16) of the 1961 Act. We may clarify that even before the insertion of Section 45(5)(c) and Section 155(16) w.e.f 1-4-2004, the receipt of enhanced compensation under Section 45(5)(b) was taxable in the year of receipt which is only reinforced by insertion of clause (c) because the right to receive payment under the 1894 Act is not in doubt. 55. It is important to note that compensation, including enhanced compensation/ consideration under the 1894 Act, is based on the full value of property as on the date of notification under Section 4 of that Act. When the court/tribunal directs payment of enhanced compensation under Section 23(1-A), or Section 23(2) or under Section 28 of the 1894 Act it is on the basis that award of the Collector or the court, under reference, has not compensated the owner for the full value of the property as on date of notification. Thus, it is clear that the Supreme Court after considering the scheme of section 45(5) of the LT. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of M.B. Ballabhai 70 Taxmann.com 45, 2016 as the same was applicable to the facts of this case. In its decision Hon'ble Gujrat High Court had followed the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Ghanshyam HUF, 2009, 182 Taxmann 368, wherein it was held that interest ujs 28 of LAC Act, 1894 is part of compensation amount whereas interest u/s 34 is only for delay in making payment after the compensation is determined. Interest u/s 28 is the part of enhanced value of land which is not the case in the matter of interest u/ s 34. Thus it was held by Hon'ble Gujrat High Court that in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme court in case of Ghanshyam HUF the interest received vi] s 28 of the LAC Act would not fall within the ambit of expression 'interest' as envisaged u/s 145A (B) of the Act as the Supreme Court has held that interest received u/s 28 of the LAC Act is not in the nature of interest but an accretion to the compensation and forms part of compensation. Hon'ble Gujrat High Court has repelled the argument that the decision of Ghanshyam HUF was rendered in 2009 and there was an amendment in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compensation and not interest which is taxable under the head 'income from other sources' u/s 56 of the Act. The compensation being exempt u/s 10 (37) of the Act is not disputed. Thus Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh followed the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and ruled in favour of the assessee on this issue. 6.6 The facts of the instant case are same as that of the cases discussed above where the jurisdictional ITAT Delhi, ITAT Bangalore, Hon'ble Gujrat High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court have discussed the matter and decided it in favour of the assessee. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs Hari Singh others, civil appeal no. 15041 -2017 dated 15.09.2017, and CIT vs Ghanshyam HUF, 2009, 182 Taxmann 368, jurisdictional Hon'ble ITAT Delhi's decision in cases of Jagmal Singh through LH vs ITO Ward- 2 (2) Gurgaon, Hon'ble ITAT Delhi 'D + SMC' Bench in its order dated 20.09.2018 and Rameshwar Vs ITO Ward-3 (4) Gurgaon and others, in ITA No. 685/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14,the appeal of the assessee is allowed and it is held that Rs.3,36,60,247/-, received as interest under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2020 (Del.); (xiii) Decision of ITAT, New Delhi, E Bench in the case of Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs. DCIT, ITA No.5986/2016 date of order 16.10.2019 (Del.); (xiv) Decision of ITAT, New Delhi, F Bench in the case of Pranav Saran vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Appeal No. ITA No.499/Del/2021 date of order 04.05.2022; (xv) Decision of ITAT, New Delhi, D Bench in the case of Land Acquisition Office vs. DCIT (TDS), Gurgaon, ITA No.39, 40 41/Del/2021 date of order dt.22.03.2022; (xvi) Decision of ITAT, New Delhi, SMC Bench in the case of Kamla Devi vs. ITO, Ward 5, Hisar, ITA No.1418/Del/2022 date of order 21.09.2022; (xvii) Shri Umang Sitani vs. ITO, Ward 31 (4), New Delhi, ITA No.3843/Del/2018, AY 2013-14 dated 28.06.2022; and (xviii) ITO, Ward 1, Hisar vs. Girish Kumar, ITA No.5084/Del/2019 date of order 06.07.2022. 7. Per contra, ld. DR could not point out any deficiency in the order of the ld. CIT (A). 8. Accordingly, following the aforesaid precedents, we do not find any infirmity in the well-reasoned order of the ld. CIT (A) and uphold the same. 9. In the result, the Revenue s appeal stands dismissed. 10. Assessee s cross objection is o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
