Rohtash Singh vs Income Tax Officer

In this case, the assessee is seen to be a non-filer who had apparently received some compensation for land acquired on which a TDS of Rs.12,57,076/- was deducted. The Ld. AO issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 15.03.2019 and reopened the case. The Ld. AO found that the NOIDA Authority had paid interest on enhanced compensation amounting to Rs.12,50,738/-. The Ld. AO brought an amount of Rs.63,27,864/- to tax u/s 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 145A(b) of the Act.

The aggrieved assessee approached the CIT(A) where also he could not succeed on the basis of finding on pages 10 to 12 of the impugned order. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the order in the case of Mahender Pal Narang reported in 423 ITR 13 (P&H) to hold that such interest was taxable. It is also recorded in the impugned order that this principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Inderjit Singh Sodhi (HUF), reported in 161 taxmann.com 301. Needless to say, the assessee could not succeed.

The assessee has now approached the ITAT with as many as seven grounds challenging the action of authorities below.

Rupesh Rashmikant Shah reported in 108 taxmann.com 181 (Bom.) [2019];

Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai reported in 388 ITR 343 (Guj.)

[2016];

Anvar Ali Poolakkodan [2025] ITA 32 of 2023 [Hon’ble Kerla High Court].

The Ld. AR argued that since there was no judgment from the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, being the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, then the balance of convenience would be in favour of the assessee following the case of Vegetable Products Limited reported in 88 ITR 192 (SC).

The Ld. DR placed reliance on the cases of Mahender Pal Narang (supra) and Inderjit Sodhi (HUF) (supra) to canvass the point that the issue was covered against the assessee.