Assessee sold a piece of land and claimed a deduction under section 54B on the purchase of other agricultural land. The same was allowed. Thereafter, Pr. Commissioner invoked revision jurisdiction under section 263 on the ground that the assessee was not eligible for deduction under section 54B as no documentary evidence was placed before the Assessing Officer about agricultural activities carried out by the assessee in said land.   Assessee had filed a reply raising objection that jurisdiction under section 263 was being exercised over 2/3rd of the parcel of land, while on 1/3rd parcel of land, capital gain was already allowed. Further, assessee had also filed details of reply to various show cause notices issued by the Assessing Officer for seeking certain information about short term/long term capital gain and agricultural income. CIT revised the order. Tribunal set aside the revision order. On appeal, the  High Court held that since Assessing Officer had examined issue in depth and allowed exemption under section 54B to assessee, view taken by the Assessing Officer was one of reasonable, plausible and legally sustainable view which could not be said to be erroneous and, thus, order passed by Pr. Commissioner under section 263 could not be sustained and same was to be set aside.  SLP of revenue was dismissed as the revenue could not explain the inordinate delay of 305 days in filing the SLP. (AY. 2016-17)