Held that the order of the Assessing Officer was based on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC) on the issue of taxability of interest received by the assessee under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The order could at best be said to be a debatable issue on which two views were possible and the Assessing Officer accepted one of the views. In this view of the matter too, the Principal Commissioner could not assume revisional jurisdiction.(AY.2018-19)
Jai Parkash v. PCIT (2024)111 ITR 80 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Income from other sources-Compensation for acquisition of agricultural land-Interest on compensation-Two views possible-Revision order is quashed. [S.4, 56(2)(vii) 143(3), Land Acquisition Act, 1894,S. 28]