Nafe Singh, Panipat vs Assessee

This appeal, preferred by the assessee, is directed against the order dated 28-01-2011, passed by the CIT(Appeals), Karnal, relating to A.Y. 2007-08.

2. Brief facts are that the assessee had filed its return declaring income of Rs. 12,98,720/-. The assessee had claimed enhanced compensation of Rs. 30,02,143/- as exempt. The assessee had also shown interest income of Rs. 18,80,006/- as per TDS certificate filed and against this the assessee haD claimed deduction of Rs. 5,80,006/- on account of expenses to earn

1 2

compensation and interest but no evidence in support of expenses had been attached with the return of income. The AO required the assessee to furnish the details of expenses with evidence as to how the expenses claimed related to earning of interest income. In response the assessee relied o the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF), wherein it has been held that if enhanced compensation is received u/s 28 of Land Acquisition Act, then if interest is received with enhanced compensation, then it is part of enhanced compensation. The AO pointed out that Hon'ble Supreme Court has no where held that interest earned on enhanced compensation is exempt u/s 10(37). He pointed out that interest allowable under the Land Acquisition Act is payable in respect of enhanced compensation which remained unpaid to the land owner. After considering the factsa, the AO disallowed the assessee's claim and assessed the income at Rs. 18,80,006/-.

2.1. Ld. CIT(A) taking note of the fact that assessee had received enhanced compensation of Rs. 30,02,143/-, which was claimed as exempt u/s 10(37) and had claimed deduction against the interest received by him on enhanced compensation, confirmed the action of the AO, inter alia, observing that assessee could not bring on record any evidence in support of his claim that interest was received u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and hence was part of the enhanced compensation. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us.

3. We have considered the submissions of Ld. DR and perused the written submissions filed on behalf of the assessee. The assessee has not brought any material on record to show whether the interest was received 2 3

u/s 28 or sec. 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, both having different import of taxation. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, order of ld. CIT(A), confirming the action of the AO in disallowing the claim of the assessee, is upheld.

4. In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in open court on 20-02-2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (ABY. T. VARKEY ) ( S.V. MEHROTRA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 20-02-2015. MP: Copy to : 1. Assessee 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR

3