PHOOL SINGH,HISAR vs. ITO WARD-1, HISAR

None appeared for the assessee at the time of hearing. Earlier adjournment was sought for and the date was granted in the presence of the assessee representative. No fresh notice is justified as we have gone through the issues involved and it appears that issues are covered against the assessee and thus assessee is not putting in appearance. Ld. DR was heard.

On a perusal of the material, we find that assessee’s return of income was processed u/s 143(1). Subsequently, rectification application u/s 154 of the Act was filed by the assessee on the basis of that interest receipt from HUDA on compulsory acquisition of land compensation is not taxable and reliance was placed on few decisions upon Hon’ble Supreme Court and of this Tribunal, however, vide order dated 27.11.2020, the rectification application was dismissed by the Assessing Officer by observing that there is no mistake apparent from record and the same has been sustained by the Ld. 4. After going through the issues as raised, we are of the considered view that even the claim of the assessee that rectification was being sought in regard to the compensation is wrong and, in fact, the rectification was being sought in regard to enhanced compensation along with interest for which the law stands settled by the decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mahender Pal Narang v. CBDT [2020] 120 taxmann.com 400 (Punjab & Haryana) as decided against the assessee by relying on sections 56(2) and 57 of the Act and further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahender Pal Narang v. CBDT [2021] 126 taxmann.com 105 (SC) dismissed the SLP. Thus certainly the plea of the assessee in the rectification application was not sustainable. There is no error in the conclusions drawn by Ld. Tax Authorities below in declining to benefit of assessee in the rectification proceedings u/s 154 of the Act. The appeals have no substance and the same are dismissed.