RAJ KUMAR,NOIDA vs. ITO, NOIDA
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No.
ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059280923(1) dated
02.01.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed in the instant appeal challenges both the learned lower authorities’ action his interest received u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 145A(b) r.w.s 57(iv) of the Act, as income from “other” sources. Raj Kumar
2
4. Learned departmental representative places reliance on Mahender Pal Narang Vs. CBDT (2020) 423 ITR 13 (P&H) as well as PCIT Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi HUF (2024) 161 taxmann.com
301 (Del.) to buttress the point the instant issue has already stands settled against the assessee.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s vehement contentions. (Guj.) that various other hon’ble non-juri ictional high courts have decided the instant issue against the department as well. No guidance has admittedly come from the hon’ble juri ictional high court at Allahabad. That being the case, I hereby quote CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) and decide the issue of taxability of section 28 interest income in assessee’s favour and against the department. Ordered accordingly. Raj Kumar
3
6. This assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 07/01/2025. (Satbeer Singh Godara)
Judicial Member
Dated: 07/01/2025
*Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS*