IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member &

Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member ITA No. 2950/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Mamraj Yadav, Vs PCIT, C/o R.S. Poonia, CA, Faridabad, D-82-B, Siwad Area, Krishna Marg, Haryana-122001 Bapu Nagar, Rajasthan-302015 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

PAN No. AAGPY3162K ITA No. 3617/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Paramjeet Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 214, Village-Gonder, Ward-1, Post Office-Gonder, Tehsil- Nisang Karnal, Karnal, Haryana-132024 Haryana-132001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

PAN No. CUSPS3028N ITA No. 3788/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Subhash Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o R.S. Poonia, CA, Ward-4(1), D-82-B, Siwad Area, Krishna Marg, Gurgaon, Haryana-122016 Bapu Nagar, Rajasthan-302015 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

PAN No. ADWPY0545R Assessee by : Sh. Raghuvir Singh Poonia, CA Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.04.2025

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

These three assessees have filed their respective as many appeals ITA Nos. 3617 & 3788/Del/2023 and ITA No. 2950/Del/2024, arise against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN &

order Nos. ITBA / NFAC /S / 250 /2022-23/1043725140(1), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057503049(1) and ITBA / REV / F / REV5/2022-23/1047808398(1) dated 04.07.2022, 05.12.2022 and 30.10.2023, in proceedings u/s 263 (first case) and u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.

2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

3. Learned counsel representing all these three assessees canvasses for their sole single substantive ground(s) seeking to contest the lower authorities’ action holding their respective interest amount, involving tax varying sums, representing compensation u/s 28 of the land acquisition Act, 1894, as taxable u/s 56(1)(viii) r.w.s. 57(iv) r.w.s. 145A(b) of the Act, as the case may be.

4. The Revenue vehemently argues that the instant issue is no more res integra in light of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. CBDT (2020) 423 ITR 13 (P&H) as well as PCIT Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi HUF (2024) 161 taxmann.com 301 (Del.) wherein the department has already succeeded before their lordships that such an interest component ought to be assessed as income from “other” sources only.

5. We have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s foregoing vehement contention. It emerges that this tribunal’s recent decision in Pawan Kumar Vs. PCIT (2024) 159 taxmann.com 61 (Del.-Trib.)

has distinguished the said case law as under:

“3. Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual. He filed his return for AY 2018-19 on 29.08.2018 declaring income of Rs. 6,35,470/-. His return was processed under section 143(1)(a) on 28.06.2019. His case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the e-assessment Scheme, 2019 on two issues, namely refund claim and winning from Lottery/crossword puzzle/horse races. The Ld. Assessing Officer ("AO") served notice under section 143(2) upon the assessee on 22.09.2019 followed by issue of notice under section 142(1) of the Act on 23.11.2020. The Ld. AO completed the assessment on 22.01.2021 under section 143(3) r.w. section 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act on income returned with the observation that on aforesaid two issues no addition is made.

4. In exercise of his powers vested in him under section 263 of the Act, the Ld. PCIT held the impugned order of the Ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. According to Ld. PCIT, the Ld. AO should have taken into consideration, the binding decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court i.e. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 19.02.2020 in the case of Mahender Pal Narang vs. CBDT (2020) 423 ITR 13 (P&H) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has dealt with the controversy arising from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF dated 16th July, 200