DAYALO DEVI HUF,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-1, PANCHKULA
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI A.D.JAIN & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
आदेश/ORDER
PER A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT
This is assessee's appeal for assessment year 2017-18
against the order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi [in short ‘the
CIT(A)’].
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
That the order of Ld. CIT(A) is against the law and facts of the case. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has passed the order u/s 250 without considering the paperbooks/written submissions filed by the assessee,
ITA 300/CHD/2023 A.Y.2017-18 2 by illegally upholding the intimation order passed u/s 143(1), totally against the Principles of Natural Justice.
That the learned CIT(A) has passed the order u/s 250 on 27.03.2023 by giving only one notice of hearing, for filing the written submissions by 27.03.2023, which written submissions/paperbooks were duly filed on 27.03.2023 itself, and passed the order in haste by wrongly stating that "there was no response from the assessee" and without considering the paperbooks/ written submissions, dated 27.03.2023 and even without adjudicating the ground No. 3 of the appeal in complete defiance of the judicial discipline and the Principles of Natural Justice. 4. That the Learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the illegal order passed by the Assessing Officer wherein an addition amounting to Rs. 1,52,36,040/- was made on account of amount received by the assessee as enhanced compensation alongwith the interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, as income from other sources, whereas the enhanced compensation and interest received u/s 23(I-A), 23(2) and 28 is exempt as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various Hon'ble Courts. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the intimation order passed u/s 143(1) by the AO, CPC, Bangalore without appreciating the fact that intimation order is without proper jurisdiction and passed beyond the scope and powers enshrined u/s 143(1). 6. Without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds of appeal and strictly in the alternative the Ld. AO and CIT(A), has grossly erred in not allowing the benefit of 50% deduction of said sum duly allowable u/s 57 of the Income Tax Act.
The facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual
and had e-filed the return of income for the assessment year
2017-18 belatedly on 30.03.2018 declaring total income of
Rs.4,36,350/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 on 26.03.2019 by the DCIT, CPC,
Bengaluru assessing the total income at Rs.1,56,72,390/- by
adding enhanced compensation and interest received for land
acquisition.
ITA 300/CHD/2023 A.Y.2017-18 3 4. Aggrieved with this addition, the assessee went in
appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the
Assessing Officer had erred in law and on facts by adding the
amount of Rs.1,52,36,040/-, received as enhanced
compensation, alongwith interest u/s 28 of the Land
Acquisition Act, as 'income from other sources', whereas the
enhanced compensation and interest was exempt, as held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other Courts. Notice
for 27.03.2023 was issued to the assessee through e-
proceedings, but there was no response from the assessee.
Accordingly, the CIT(A) upheld the order passed by the
Assessing Officer and decided the appeal against the
assessee, holding that interest received on enhanced
compensation was liable to tax, against which the assessee
is in appeal before this Tribunal.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that
the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order dated 27.03.2023 u/s
250 of the Act, upholding the addition amounting to
Rs.1,52,36,040/- made by the Assessing Officer by giving
only one notice of hearing for filing written submissions by
27.03.2023. It was submitted that the written
submissions/Paper Books were duly filed on 27.03.2023
ITA 300/CHD/2023 A.Y.2017-18 4 itself, but these were not considered and the order was
passed in haste and even Ground No. 3 of the appeal was not
adjudicated.
The ld. DR, on the other hand, has placed strong
reliance on the impugned order.
We have heard the parties and have perused the
material on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has
submitted that two Paper Books containing reply/written
submissions and case laws, etc., were submitted before the
ld. CIT(A), but the same were not considered and the order
was passed upholding the order passed by the Assessing
Officer. We deem it fit and appropriate that in the interest of
justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to
explain his case by way of evidence, documents, or
information, etc. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the
file is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter
afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee, no
doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the
CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so
available to the assessee.
ITA 300/CHD/2023 A.Y.2017-18 5 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for
statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 09.05.2024.
Sd/- Sd/-
(KRINWANT SAHAY) (A.D.JAIN ) ACCOUNTANTMEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
“Poonam”
आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/ CIT 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar
