DAYALO DEVI HUF,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-1, PANCHKULA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order without considering the assessee's paperbooks and written submissions, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee received enhanced compensation and interest for land acquisition. The Assessing Officer treated this as income from other sources, making an addition. The CIT(A) upheld this addition without considering the assessee's submissions.
What were the issues?
Whether the enhanced compensation and interest received for land acquisition is taxable, and whether the CIT(A) erred by not considering the assessee's submissions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(1),Section 250,Section 28,Section 23(1-A),Section 23(2),Section 57
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
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:
1. 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.
3. 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.
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.
More judgments on Section 28
- Duddukuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative… vs ITO, Ward - 1, TadepalligudemITA 258/VIZ/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- The Vijapur Taluka Co-Operative Purchase… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, PatanITA 925/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- ACIT, Circle-4, Patna vs Amit Kumar Singh, PatnaITA 95/PAT/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- DCIT Circle-4, Patna vs Amit Kumar Singh, PatnaITA 88/PAT/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Vishal Oil and Lubricants Co vs The Commissioner of Customs (Import)W.P.(C)-7004/202628 Sept 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Suryansh Chawda vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Yash Shilawat vs. State Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Pushpa Devi Verma vs. State Bank Of INDIA Through Its Chief ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Ayan Khan vs. Bandhan BankMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026