JAGROSHNI (L/H OF LATE ANANT RAM),NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 54(5), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6087/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 October 2021AY 2014-155 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) passed an ex parte order sustaining the addition without deciding the appeal on merits. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case and pass a speaking order.

What were the facts?

The assessee received compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land, which was wrongly declared as agricultural income. The Assessing Officer treated the interest component of the compensation as taxable income from other sources, making an addition after allowing a 50% deduction.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly decided the appeal on merits when passing an ex parte order, and if not, what is the appropriate course of action.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(viii),Section 145A(b),Section 250(6)

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, DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA

For Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR
Hearing: 13.10.2021Pronounced: 13.10.2021

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jagroshni (L/H of Late Anant Ram), Vs. ITO, T-77, Sarai Kale Khan, Ward 54(5), East Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: ANWPR8178H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 13.10.2021 ORDER

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex parte order dated 15th March, 2019 of the CIT(A)-18, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, this appeal is being decided on the basis of the material available on record and after hearing the ld. DR.

3.

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, these all relate to the ex parte order of the CIT(A) in sustaining an addition of Rs.23,09,415/- made by the AO on account of interest on compensation/enhanced compensation.

4 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed its return of income on 27th September, 2014 declaring the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,45,160/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO asked the assessee to file the bifurcation of compensation/enhanced compensation and interest on compensation received on compulsory acquisition of land and proof of agricultural income declared in the return. The assessee, in response to the same, submitted that the amount of Rs.74,42,895/- is not actually the agricultural income , but, the total compensation received by the assessee against the compulsory acquisition of agricultural land situated at village Kilokari and Behlolpur Khaddar. It was submitted that while filing the return for the impugned assessment year, this amount of compensation was wrongly mentioned as agricultural income. He noted that the assessee has also claimed the amount of TDS deducted on this amount of compensation as refund in the revised return. The assessee has claimed deduction u/s 10(37) on account of capital gain arising out of acquisition of agricultural land.

5.

However, the AO noted that out of the total amount of Rs.74,42,895/-, Rs.46,18,829/- is the interest on compensation/enhanced compensation which is taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 145A(b) of the IT Act. He, therefore, asked the assessee to file his submission. In absence of any satisfactory explanation given by the assessee, the AO treated the amount of Rs.46,18,829/- as income under the head ‘Income from other sources.’ After allowing deduction of 50% u/s 56(2)(viii) of the Act, the AO made an addition of Rs.23,09,415/- to the total income of the assessee. Thus, the AO determined the income of the assessee at Rs.25,54,580/-.

6.

Since the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A), the ld.CIT(A), in the ex parte order passed by him, sustained the addition made by the AO.

7.

Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee in appeal before the Tribunal.

8.

I have heard the ld. DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) for which he was constrained to pass the ex parte order by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320. However, he has not decided the appeal on merit which he is required to do as per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, according to which, the order of the CIT(A) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Since the ld.CIT(A), in the instant case, has not decided the appeal on merit, therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and decide the appeal as per fact and law by passing a speaking order. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the CIT(A) and substantiate his case without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the ld.CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 56(2)(viii)

All 364 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(viii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →