TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in quashing the said order by invoking the provision of Section 263 of the Act. Accordingly we quash the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT by allowing the Grounds of appeal of the Assessee. - Sh. Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Lalit Mohan, CA For the Revenue : Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Rohtak [ Ld. PCIT , for short], dated 28/03/2023 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds of the Assessee are as under:- 1. That order Cordatedion 28.3.2023 w/s 263 of the Act by the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak hath bee Amade without satisfying the statutory preconditions contained in has been made therefore without jurisdiction and thus, deserves to be quashed as such. 2. That initiation of proceedings u/s 263 of the Act on the basis of proposal of learned Assessing Officer is void- ab-initio therefore basis of proposal land consequent order u/s 263 of the Act without jurisdiction and thus, deserves to be quashed as such. 3. That initiation of proceedings u/s 26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and simultaneous application u/s 154 to the CPC seeking deletion of addition which was made on account of interest on enhanced compensation. The CPC vide its order dated 07.07.2020 accepted the Assessee s application u/s 154 of the act and granted a refund of Rs. 19,53,280/- as against demand raised originally at Rs. 47.75,510/- deleting the addition made on account of interest on enhanced compensation. 4. The Ld. PCIT by exercising the power conferred u/s 263 of the act, initiated proceedings u/s 263 of the Act and was of the opinion that the order passed u/s 154 of the Act is erroneous so far as judicial to the interest of the revenue in terms of Explanation 2 of Section 263 of the Act, accordingly, the order of the CPC dated 07/07/2020 passed u/s 154 of the Act was set aside with a direction to pass a fresh order. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. PCIT dated 28/03/2023 the assessee preferred the present Appeal on the grounds mentioned above. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the order passed u/s 263 of the Act is contrary to the provision as the Section u/s 263 of the Act is not permissible on an intimation/order passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee seeking for deletion of addition made by the CPC on account of interest received on enhanced compensation, which was rejected by the CPC vide order dated 06/09/2019, the assessee filed an Appeal against the order dated 06/09/2019 before the CIT(A) and simultaneously filed an application u/s 154 of the Act to the CPC seeking deletion of addition which was made on account of interest on enhanced compensation. The CPC vide its order dated 07/07/2020, accepted the Assessee s application u/s 154 of the Act and granted refund of Rs. 19,53,280/- as against the demand raised originally at Rs. 47,75,510/- by deleting the addition made on account of interest on enhanced compensation. 8. It is the case of the Departmental Representative that the Judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ghanshyam HUF (2009) 315 ITR 1 is not applicable to the case in hand as after the said Judgment of the Apex Court, special provision has been made by way of Finance Act, 2009 applicable w.e.f. 2010-11, introducing clause (viii) in Section 56(2) and as such, Ghanshyuam HUF case is no longer applicable. The similar contention of the Department has been considered in detail by the Coordinate Bench of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. An application under section 264 was made claiming that by mistake the assessee treated the interest income as income from other sources whereas the same is part of enhanced compensation. The revisional authority rejected the application under section 264 on 30.1.2019. It was in this factual matrix that the assessee filed writ petition before the Hon'ble P H High Court. The question for consideration was whether after the insertion of section 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv) of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2010, can the assessee claim that interest received under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will partake the character of the compensation and would fall under the head capital gain and not income from other sources ? It was argued by the assessee that there is no amendment in section 10(37) and by insertion of sections 56(2)(vui) and 57(iv), the nature of interest under section 28 of the 1894 Act will remain that of compensation and decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam (HUF) and the decision of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai vs ITO TDS (2016) 388 ITR 343 were relie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
