SHIVKANT NAGAPPA LASUNE,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICEER, WARD -3,, LATUR

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 is directed against the CIT(A)-2, Pune’s order dated 08/08/2019 passed in case No.ABD/CIT(A)-2/358/ 2017- 18 involving proceedings u/s. 144 r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

It emerges during the course of hearing that sole substantive issue which arise for our apt adjudication is that of the correctness of the both the lower appellate authorities action invoking section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s 57 (iv)

Mr. Kulkarni vehemently argued that both the lower authorities have erred in assessing impugned income despite the fact that the assessee is entitled for Section 10(37) exemption as this is a case of compulsory acquisition of is lands. He also quotes CBDT Circular number 36 dated 25.10.2016: (2016) 388 ITR 48-49 (57) that such an interest income received under Rights To Fair Compensation and Transport in Land Acquisition Rehabilitilisation Act 2013 “RFCTLARR ACT” in support. We find no merit in the assessee’s instant arguments as it has already come on record that his lands had been acquired vide Government notification dated 21.01.2006 than the forgoing “RFCTLARR ACT”. Learned counsel’s arguments are rejected accordingly.

The assessee next contended that both the lower authorities have wrongly denied section 10(37) exemption to the assessee regarding the impugned interest income. This latter argument raised at the assessee’s behest also goes against CIT(A) detailed discussion wherein he has already held that interest received under section 28 of the land acquisition Act 1894 forms part of the enhanced compensation or consideration in light of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) 2009 315 ITR 1 (SC) and therefore entitled for section 3 A.Y. : 2013-14 Shivkant Nagappa Lasune, ,

Coming to the assessee’s interest income covered u/s.34 of the land acquisition Act, we note that the very judicial precedent hereinabove has already settled the law that the latter component represents interest on account of delay in payment of the former limb of compensation which is not covered u/s.10(37) Explanation. We therefore conclude in this clinching factual background the CIT(A) has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to get the detailed break up of assessee’s interest income involving combined figure of Rs.50,33,078/- from the Special Land Acquisition Officer and restrict section 10(37) exemption relief only qua the interest component u/s.28 of the land acquisition act. The assessee fails in his sole substantive grounds; ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 19th day of October, 2022. (DR.DIPAK P.RIPOTE) (S.S. GODARA) लेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ददनांक / Dated : 19th October, 2022. Ashwini