DEEPA,PINJORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA

In the present appeal, Assessee has raised the following grounds:

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had received enhanced compensation on acquisition of land along with interest under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The Assessing Officer treated the interest received on such enhanced compensation as taxable income under the head “Income from Other Sources” u/s 56(2)(viii) of the Act and allowed statutory deduction u/s 57(iv).

Against the order of the AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer.

Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before us raising the grievance that the interest received u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act forms part of compensation and is not taxable separately.

Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the order of the lower authorities.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on the record. At the outset, it is noticed that the issue involved in the present appeal is no longer res integra and stands squarely covered by the consolidated decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ajay Kumar & Others (ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 and connected appeals) decided on 11.11.2025. 7.1 In the said decision, the Coordinate Bench, after considering the entire statutory framework including section 56(2)(viii), section 145B(1) and the judicial precedents including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF), has categorically held that the interest received on compensation/enhanced compensation is taxable under the head “Income from Other Sources” in the year of receipt. The Tribunal further held that the assessee is entitled only to the statutory deduction as provided u/s 57(iv) of the Act.

2 We further observe that in the lead case before the Coordinate Bench, identical arguments were raised by the assessee that interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act forms part of compensation and should not be taxed separately. The Coordinate Bench, after detailed discussion, rejected the said contention and upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

3 Since the facts and the issue involved in the present appeal are identical to those adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench in the aforesaid decision, and no distinguishing facts have been brought to our notice by the Ld. Authorized Representative, we respectfully follow the binding precedent. Accordingly, following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Ajay Kumar & Others (supra), we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

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

""थ"/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु"/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु" (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च"ीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड" फाईल/ Guard File