SALUNKI GOVINDRAO SAMBHAJI,DHARWAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal without admitting it, especially if a rectification petition was pending. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) to condone the delay if the rectification petition was indeed pending.
What were the facts?
The assessee received interest on land acquisition compensation and claimed exemption. The CPC disallowed a deduction under Section 57(iv) and made an addition. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 21-month delay.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal due to delay without considering the pendency of a rectification petition. The taxability of interest on land acquisition compensation and the allowability of deduction under Section 57(iv).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 57(iv),Section 10,Section 143(1),Section 139(1),Section 139(5),Section 154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC, Delhi dated 22.12.2021 for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds:-
1. Illegal order: The order passed by CPC is illegal, baseless an d opposed to the facts of the case.
2. Interest on enhanced compensation: The assessee received interest from compensation on land acquisition. The CPC has erred in making addition of entire income from interest on land acquisition. As per the provision o f the Act, interest income is chargeable to tax after providing adhoc deduction u/s 57(iv) of t he Act. 143
3. (1) Any other grounds of appeal The assessee prays leave to add any other grou nds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.
Salunki Govindrao Sambhaji, Dharwad
Page 2 of 3 4. Interest on enhancd compensation: The interest received on enhanced compensation is also part of compensation and hence is exempt, as compensation is on acquisition of agricultural land.
Facts of the case are that during the processing of return of income u/s 143(1)(vi) of the Act made addition of Rs.6,55,116/- u/s 57(iv) of the Act being the interest from compensation on land acquisition and determine the total income at Rs.9,35,120/-. The assessee carried the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 u/s 139(1) of the Act on 25.1.2018 and again revised the return u/s 139(5) of the Act on 25.9.2018. The assessee declared income received in the nature of interest on land acquisition and claimed exemption u/s 10 of the Act. The return of income was processed and intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was issued by DCIT (CPC) Bangalore. The CPC disallowed the deduction claimed by assessee u/s 57(iv) of the Act being income from interest on land acquisition. The assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act, which is not yet been considered. However, the appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A) with the delay of 21 months and stated that the delay was deemed to pending of petition filed by assessee u/s 154 of the Act for rectification of earlier intimation sent by the CPC. According to the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, there was no reasonable cause for such inordinate delay. Hence, he unadmitted the appeal of the assessee. In my opinion, if the rectification petition filed by the assessee pending during that period of 21 months, it means that assessee has been pursuing the alternative remedy available to the assessee, so as to seek relief. Being so, the Ld. CIT(A) not justified in dismissing the appeal without admitting the same. Accordingly, I direct the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC to condone the delay if the petition filed by assessee u/s 154 of the Act was actually pending before the authorities during the period of delay of 21 months and decide
Salunki Govindrao Sambhaji, Dharwad
Page 3 of 3 accordingly. With this observation, I remit the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A). At this time, I refrain from committing anything on merit of the issue raised by the assessee with regard to additions made by CPC.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th Aug, 2022
More judgments on Section 57(iv)
- Randhir Singh, Yamunanagar vs ITO, YamunanagarITA 661/CHANDI/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Kumar Satish, Gurugram vs ITO Ward 2(2), GurugramITA 6552/DEL/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Rakesh, Gurgaon vs Income Tax Officer, GurugramITA 5707/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Sandeep, Sonipat vs Income Tax Officer Ward-1, SonipatITA 2392/DEL/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Shallender Rathee, Jhajjar vs Ward 2 Rohtak, RohtakITA 7651/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed10 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
