Avail 20% discount on updated CA lectures for Dec 21 .Use Code RESULT20 !! Call : 088803-20003

ICICI

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Assessee Ram Kishan, Delhi ITO, Ward-60(5), New Delhi

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT New Delhi

Brief :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-37, New Delhi dated 26.07.2017 for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

Citation :
ITA No. 5391/Del/2017

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
(Through Video Conferencing)
ITA No. 5391/Del/2017
(Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Ram Kishan,
C/o. Jain Khandewal & Co., 510,
New Delhi House, 27,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi
PAN: AHAPC1442P
(Appellant) 

Vs. ITO,

Ward-60(5),
New Delhi
(Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Ved Jain, CA
Revenue by: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing 25/11/2020
Date of pronouncement 02/12/2020

O R D E R

PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M.

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-37, New Delhi dated 26.07.2017 for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,21,03,610/- made by the ld AO on account of interest of enhanced compensation.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the ld learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition, rejecting the contention of the assessee that the amount of Rs. 24207223/- having been received u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, the same is not taxable as not being in the nature of interest as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam HUF 315 ITR 1.

4. The addition has been confirmed by the ld CIT(A) misinterpreting the various judicial pronouncements given by various High Courts.”

3. The only issue in this appeal is whether interest received on enhanced compensation of Rs 24,207,223 received by the assessee u/s 28 of the land acquisition act is chargeable to tax or not.

4. The assessee is an individual. He filed his return of income declaring income of ₹ 405,850 on 9 June 2014. During the year Under consideration the assessee has declared income from house property and income from other sources. The return of income was selected for scrutiny because of the high ratio of refund to tax deduction at source. The assessee was owning agricultural land in his ancestral village at Chilla Saroda Bangar. The above land was Under cultivation till the time of its compulsory acquisition by the Delhi development authority and the assessee has received compensation of ₹ 29,568,978 on compulsory acquisition of this land for development of Delhi from land acquisition Commissioner, Delhi. The assessee has produced the documents of gram panchayat given by the Block development Officer in the above-mentioned village and also produce the Khatauani unty of the above land. The assessee has also attached with the return of income the tax deduction at source certificate issued by the land acquisition collector New Delhi according to which tax of ₹ 2,469,136/– has been deducted u/s 194LA of the act. The learned assessing officer examined the same and issued an enquiry letter u/s 133 (6) of the act to the land acquisition collector to verify the above certificate and also to furnish the bifurcation of the compensation and interest on it. The land acquisition Commissioner as per letter dated 8 December 2016 has informed the learned assessing officer according to which the total enhanced comment compensation was ₹ 29,568,978 out of which original compensation was ₹ 5,361,755 and interest was ₹ 24,207,223. The assessee claimed the interest received of ₹ 24,207,223 as exempt u/s 10 (37) of the act. The assessee claimed above exemption on the basis of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of CIT versus Ghanshyam (HUF) 315 ITR 1 .

To know more in details find the attachment file
 

 

Guest
on 04 December 2020
Published in Income Tax
Views : 8
downloaded 5 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags