IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1017/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2017-18]

Shri Om Prakash Vs. The P.C.I.T House No. 83, Machhgar Faridabad Ballabgarh, Faridabad PAN – BSJPP 3718A (Applicant) (Respondent)

Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 10.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025

ORDER

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, A.M:-

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld.

PCIT, Faridabad dated 22.01.2024 for A.Y 2017-18.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1.That the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad has erred in issuing notice and passing order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 setting aside the assessment order U/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 25.03 2022 passed by the Ld. A.O.

2) That the Ld. PCIT has also erred to state that assessment framed and order passed u/s 147 by the Ld. A.O is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

3) That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, proceeding initiated U/s 263 of the act is void-ab-initio because when two possible views are available and the issue is debatable then initiation of revision is not permissible U/s 263. Reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs Yes Bank Ltd. (2017) 99 CCH 0445 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 192. The Hon'ble ITAT Delhi has also followed the judgement of the Delhi High Court in Pawan Kumar vs PCIT, Rohtak dated 24.01.2024 (ITA. No.

1655/Del./2023).

4) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT erred in exercising jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act in respect of taxability of interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act by not following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the below-mentioned cases wherein it was held that the interest U/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 received by the assessee, is a part of the enhanced compensation and hence exempt U/s 10(37) of the Income Tax Act:

CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 182 Taxman 368/315 ITR 1(SC):

UOI v. Hari Singh |2018| 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC).

5) That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax was not justified on facts and in law in not following the judgement of the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Land Acquisition Office, Gurgaon Vs. DCIT(TDS), Gurgaon dated 22.03.2022 (ITA Nos. 39, 40 and 41/Del/2021) [ITAT Delhi] where it is held that no TDS is liable is to be deducted on the amount of interest received U/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as it is a part of compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land of the assessee.

6) That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.

It is therefore prayed that the impugned addition should be deleted or such other suitable relief be allowed which the Hon'ble bench may deem fit.”

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed his return of income for AY 2017-18. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147on the basis of information that the assessee had received Rs 1,08,51,111/- as interest on enhancement of compensation on compulsory acquisition during the year which he had claimed exempt income 10(37) of the I T Act. The Assessing Officer in the proceedings u/s 147 accepted the assesse’s claim of the same being exempt from taxation on the basis of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam Das HUF 315 ITR 1.

4. Thereafter, setting aside the assessment order, the PCIT initiated proceedings u/s 263 of the Act stating that the Assessing Officer did not conduct proper enquiry whe