TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the compensation/enhance compensation is received by the assessee as their land was agricultural land. The compensation was received in respect of agricultural land belonging to the assessee which had been acquired by the state government. Therefore, the same comes under the purview of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. - decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 3996/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 15-1-2019 - SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Department : Sh. SL Anuragi, Sr. DR For The Assessee : Sh. Sudhir Yadav, Advocate ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order dated 12.1.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Gurgaon relating to assessment year 2014-15 on the followin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the head capital gain. The AO asked the assessee to explain why no income had been shown under the head capital gain. The assessee submitted that he had received enhanced compensation under the Land Acquisition Act and the same was exempt under section 10(37) of the Act. The assessee further submitted that HSIIDC had wrongly deducted TDS on this enhanced compensation under section 194LA. The AO considered the assessee s submission but was not satisfied. The AO further pointed out that the assessee had not furnished a copy of the ownership of the land, Girdawari and other relevant documents, which prove that the land in acquisition is not a capital asset. The AO referred to the provisions of Section 194LA and Section 2(14) of the Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed a well reasoned order by placing the reliance of various decisions applicable on the issue in dispute. 5. I have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the impugned order. 5.1 I note that the issue in dispute in the present appeal is squarely also covered by the ITAT, Delhi, D+SMC Bench order dated 20.9.2018 in the case of Jagmal Singh vs. ITO passed in ITA No. 2340/Del/2018 (AY 2013-14). 5.2 It is noted that Ld. DR has stated that Department filed proposal for Review Petition against the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi passed in WP(C) No. 590 of 2016 and 405 of 2017 order dated 15.09.2017 in the case of Brahmparkash Rajender Singh and Anr (Combined order in Civil Appeal No. 15041 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s Ghansham (HUF) 315 ITR 1 held that interest paid on the excess amount, u/s 28 of 1894 Act., depends upon a claim by the person whose land is acquired whereas interest u/s 34 is for delay in making payment. Interest u/s 28 is a part of enhanced value of land which is not the case in the matter of payment of interest u/s 34. 5.8 The Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court considered this issue in the case of Manjeet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh V/s Union of India and Ors. CWP No. 15506 of 2013 dated 14/01/2014 (2016) 237 Taxmann 116. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court considered the issue whether the interest u/s 28 of the 1894 Act. is taxable u/s 56 of the IT Act. as income fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2014 in CR No. 7740 of 2012. 5.12 The Hon ble High Court while recalling this order held as under:- 1. The applications for review is sought by the Union of India on the plea that the orders passed by this Court in the absence of any representation of Union, failed to take note of an amendment in the Income Tax Act. The said provision made interest component assessed on additional amount on land acquisition awards under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as taxable. The amendment through Section 145-A (b) took effect from April 2010. I have relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Incometax, Faridabad Versus Ghanshyam (HUF) Civil Appeal No. 4401 of2009 decided on 16.7.2009 reported in 2009 (9) JT 445 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (Supra) and CIT Rajkot Vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya are not applicable in the appellant s case. 5.14 The decisions of the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Sunderlal and Anr. Dated 21.09.2015 (Supra) and in the case of Jagmal Sing Ors. (Supra) being the latest decisions on this issue and these decision having considered the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (Supra) and also considering the fact that the Hon ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP filed in the case of Manjit Singh (HUF) (Supra), it is held that the interest received u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is not exempt under the act as it could not partake the character of compensation for acqu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
