TEJPAL SINGH YADAV,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 835/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 November 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purposes

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, the addition was also sustained on merits. Citing the need for factual verification regarding the nature of compensation received and the sources of the FDRs, the Tribunal restored the entire issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh determination, ensuring the assessee is given adequate opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee received interest on compensation/enhanced compensation for land acquisition from Noida Authority and created FDRs from these proceeds. The AO made an addition, which was subsequently sustained by the CIT(A) despite the appeal before him being ex parte, relying on a High Court judgment.

What were the issues?

Whether the interest on compensation/enhanced compensation for land acquisition and FDRs created from such proceeds are taxable, and the proper treatment thereof requiring factual verification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

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 BENCHES : H : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CA
For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Hearing: 28.10.2024Pronounced: 06.11.2024

(Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Satyajeet Goel, CA Revenue by : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 28.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 06.11.2024 ORDER

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

1.

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26.12.2023 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in Appeal Nos.NFAC/2012-13/10169787 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 31.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).

2.

On hearing both the sides, we find that the assessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act and the order of the ld. First Appellate Authority is also ex parte. We find that following the decision in Multiplan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320, in para 8.3, the CIT(A) mentions that the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution. However, the CIT(A) had also sustained the addition on merits.

3.

We find that the issue primarily involved in the case of the assessee is treatment required to be given to the amount received by the assessee in the form of interest on compensation/enhanced compensation received from Noida Authority in lieu of the acquisition of landholding of the assessee by the said authority. The issue also concerns the FDRs created by the assessee which the ld. AR has submitted that same was out of the compensation proceeds only. Ld. AR has tried to distinguish the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mahender Pal Narang vs. CBDT, CWP No.17971 of 2019, order dated 19.02.2020, which is relied by the ld. CIT(A). As the issue requires verification of facts about the heads under which the assessee had received the compensation or sources of creation of FD, we find it an appropriate case to restore the issue for a fresh determination by the AO. Accordingly setting aside the assessment order the issue on merits is restored with the AO for afresh 2 determination. Needless to say, adequate opportunity of hearing shall be given to the assessee.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →