MOHAN RANGRAO MORE,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, LATUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1807/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 February 2020AY 2010-113 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax the interest received under the Land Acquisition Act as per Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, relying on a Supreme Court judgment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an agriculturist, declared Nil income and claimed TDS refund. The AO reopened the case and made an addition of Rs. 77,86,805/-. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.

What were the issues?

Whether interest received under the Land Acquisition Act is taxable as income from other sources. Whether the CIT(A) correctly upheld the AO's addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 56(2)(viii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Shah
For Respondent: Shri Vijay Netke
Hearing: 13.02.2020Pronounced: 13.02.2020

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad, dated 01-05-2017 for the Assessment Year 2010-11.

2.

Briefly stated, relevant facts include that the assessee is an agriculturist by profession. The assessee filed his return of income on 27.09.2011 declaring Nil income and claiming the TDS amount of Rs.17,58,097/- as refund. The case of the assessee was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) to which, the assessee has not filed return. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making addition of Rs.77,86,805/- in para 6 of in its order.

3.

The CIT(A) upheld the order of AO.

4.

Aggrieved with the said decision of CIT(A) in the year under consideration, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. There is small delay of 12 days. After considering contents of the Affidavit and the smallness, the delay is condoned.

5.

We heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We find that the CIT(A) has elaborately discussed the issue of interest received u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act to be brought to tax in terms of section 56(2)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in paras 8 to 12. The CIT(A) relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bikram Singh Vs. Land Acquisition Collector (1997) 224 ITR 551 (SC) has upheld the order of AO. Considering the settled nature of the issue, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of assessee and does not call for interference from our side. Accordingly, the grounds raised by assessee are dismissed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on this 13th day of February, 2020.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →