Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2024 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 748 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - taxability of interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act - ‘no enquiry’ or ‘lack of enquiry’ - as per CIT AO had completed the assessment without carrying out necessary and proper enquiry which he ought to have carried out in respect of the treatment of interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation - HELD THAT:- In the light of evidence available on records, it cannot be alleged as done by the Ld. PCIT that it is a case of ‘no enquiry’ or ‘lack of enquiry’. No doubt that the Ld. AO did not discuss elaborately in the assessment order but that alone cannot make the order erroneous as held in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [2009 (9) TMI 633 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Ganpat Ram Bisnoi [2005 (8) TMI 106 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous as held in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.[2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] None of these elements exist in the case at hand. The opinion of the Ld. PCIT that the Ld. AO should have passed the assessment in accordance with the amended law and binding decision in Mahender Pal Narang’s case [2020 (3) TMI 1115 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] overlooking the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam’s HUF’s [2009 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] case is not sustainable. Reliance by the Ld. PCIT on the decision in Mahender Pal Narang’s case is misplaced. During assessment proceedings in response to notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, with reference to specific query on receipt of interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, the assessee explained that interest received under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act has been held to be part of compensation by Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF [2009 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT], the same being exempt under section 10(37) of the Act has not been included in the total income of the assessee while filing return of income. The Ld. AO accepted the explanation of the assessee. Since 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 on which two views are possible and the Ld. AO accepts one of the views. In this view of the matter too, the Ld. PCIT cannot assume revisional jurisdiction as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. [2011 (1) TMI 138 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Thus we hold that the order of the Ld. PCIT is not sustainable. Decided in favour of assessee.
|