SANJAY,GHAZIABAD V. WARD 2(1), GHAZIABAD

ITA 4481/DEL/2025

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772534 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SUMIT BANSAL
• Section: 147; 28

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 4481/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Sanjay, Village & P.O.-Raispur, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201002 Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hapur Road, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. CVIPS0942Q Assessee by: Sh. Sumit Bansal, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 27.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 27.08.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076782472(1) dated 06.06.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. Coming to the sole substantive issue between the parties herein, it emerges that both the learned lower authorities have treated the assessee’s enhanced compensation received from the prescribed authority under the provisions of section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4481/Del/2025 Sanjay 2 57(iv) of the Act in assessment order dated 28.03.2022 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. Faced with this situation, learned departmental representative vehemently argues that the instant issue already stands decided in the Revenue’s favour in Mahender Pal Narang Vs. CBDT (2020) 423 ITR 13 (P&H) and PCIT Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi HUF (2024) 161 taxmann.com 301 (Del.). The assessee on the other hand places strong reliance on case law Rupesh Rashmikant Shah Vs. UOI (2019) 417 ITR 169 (Bom.), Anvar Ali Poolakkodan Vs. ITO (2025) 173 taxmann.com 633 (Kerala) and Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai Vs. ITO (2016) 388 ITR 343 (Guj.) decided the very issue against the department. It is further clear that no valuable guidance has come from hon’ble jurisdictional high court at Allahabad. I accordingly adopt the view which favours the assessee in light of CIT Vs. Vegetable products Ltd. (1971) 80 ITR 14(Cal.) to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ action in question assessing his interest on enhanced compensation u/s 28 of the Act (supra). Ordered accordingly. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4481/Del/2025 Sanjay 3 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 27/08/2025. Sd/- (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 27/08/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Printed from counselvise.com "