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

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.

The CIT(A) upheld the order of AO.

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.

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.

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