TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1461
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in law, the order under section 203 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (" the Act") dated 28.03.2024 passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak [PCIT), setting aside the assessment order 147 r.w.s. 1448 of the Act dated 29.03.2022 by the Assessing Officer, National e-Assessment Centre ['the Assessing Officer"] as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, is without jurisdiction, bad in law and void-ab-initio. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak [PCIT) erred in passing order u/s 263 of the Act, so much so that, the assessment order passed by the Assessing officer does not satisfy the statutory twin condition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....& Haryana High Court in the case Mahender Pal Narang Vs CBDT (423 ITR 13). dt. 19.02.2020 on the ground that SLP in this case has been rejected by the Honorable Supreme Court ignoring the settled law that rejection of SLP without a speaking order cannot be treated as an order of Honorable Supreme Court. 7. That the Ld. PCIT has erred in assuming revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Coca as the order of the Ld. AO is based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam HUF (supra) on the issue of taxability of interest received by the assessee under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, it can at best be said to be a debatable issue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....venue, accordingly set aside the Assessment Order and directed the A.O. to pass fresh assessment order after giving the due opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. PCIT dated 01/03/2024, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal on the grounds mentioned above. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the question as to whether receipt of interest related to the additional compensation granted under Land Acquisition Act is a part of exempt income u/s 10(37) of the Act or not is a debatable issue, the A.O. while framing the Assessment u/s 147 of the Act has taken plausible view based on the decisions rendered by various Courts, which cannot be held to be erroneous while exercising power u/s 263 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(37) of Income Tax Act in case of compulsory acquisition of agricultural land." The Assessee has also relied on following citation in support of the argument before the A.O. a) CIT Vs Ghanshyam HUF (2009) 315 ITR 0001 b) C.I.T. vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya (2014) 367 ITR 0498 (SC) c) State of Punjab vs. Amarjit Singh (2011) 4 SCC 734 d) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chet Ram HUF Civil Appeal No. 13053/2017 dated. Sept. 12,2017 e) Union of India and Ors Vs Hari Singh and Others Civil Appeal No. 15041 of 2017 Dt. 15.09.2017 f) Income Tax Officer-TDS2, Rajkot Vs Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri Civil Appeal No. 27333 of 2017 Dt. 10.11.2017. 8. After considering the reply given by the Assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law." 10. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Canara Bank Securities Ltd., S.L.P.(C) No. 25651 of 2019, vide order dated 14th October, 2019 dismissed the Department's appeal affirming the view taken by the Bombay High Court in ITA No. 1761 of 2016, dated February 11, 2019, wherein the High Court held that the question whether the income should be taxed as business income or has arisen from other source was a debatable issue and the Assessing Officer had taken the plausible view that it was a business income after due enquiries and therefore it ....