SANJAY,GHAZIABAD vs. WARD 2(1), GHAZIABAD

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

Coming to the sole substantive issue between the parties herein, it emerges that both the learned lower authorities have treated the assessee’s enhanced compensation received from the prescribed authority under the provisions of section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as taxable u/s 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. Sanjay 2 57(iv) of the Act in assessment order dated 28.03.2022 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

Faced with this situation, learned departmental representative vehemently argues that the instant issue already stands decided in the Revenue’s favour in Mahender Pal Narang Vs. CBDT (2020) 423 ITR 13 (P&H) and PCIT Vs. Vs. ITO (2016) 388 ITR 343 (Guj.) decided the very issue against the department. It is further clear that no valuable guidance has come from hon’ble juri ictional high court at Allahabad. I accordingly adopt the view which favours the assessee in light of CIT Vs. Vegetable products Ltd. (1971) 80 ITR 14(Cal.) to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ action in question assessing his interest on enhanced compensation u/s 28 of the Act (supra). Ordered accordingly. Sanjay 3 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed.