Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Umed Singh,Sonepat, Haryana vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 25 March, 2025
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
DELHI BENCH: 'F' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.2894/Del/2024
Assessment Year: 2018-19
Sh. Umed Singh, Vs. PCIT,
Sersa, Kundli Industrial Rohtak
Estate, Sonepat,
Haryana
PAN: CRXPS8583C
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Sh. Lakshay Gupta, CA
Department by Sh. Sunil Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 25.03.2025
Date of pronouncement 25.03.2025
ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee's appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [in short "PCIT"], Rohtak's DIN and order no. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2023- 24/1063584128(1), dated 28.03.2024, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
ITA No.2894/Del/20243. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee here is aggrieved against the learned PCIT's impugned revision direction under section 263 of the Act thereby holding the Assessing Officer's regular assessments framed on 30th April, 2021 as an erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue so far, the latter had not assessed/taxed the interest component of Rs.7,70,640/- received taxable under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
4. Learned Senior DR vehemently argues in the light of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. CBDT (2020) 423 ITR 13 (P&H), the instant issue is no more res-integra since already decided against the assessee. We find no merit in the Revenue's foregoing argument as the tribunal's recent decision in Pawan Kumar Vs. PCIT in ITA No.1655/Del/2023 has already rejected the Revenue's very stand, as under:
"3. Brief ly stated , the assessee is an ind ividu al. He filed his return for AY 2018-19 on 29.08.2018 decl aring income of Rs. 6,35, 470/-. His return was processed u nder section 143(1)( a) on 2 8.06.2019. His c ase was selected for comple te scrutiny assessment und er the e-assessmen t Scheme, 2019 on two issues, namely refund cl aim and winning f rom Lottery/crossword pu zzle/horse races. The Ld. Assessing Officer ("AO" ) served notice under section 14 3(2) u pon the assessee on 22 .09.2019 f ollowed b y issue of notice unde r
2|Page ITA No.2894/Del/2024 section 142( 1) of the Act on 23.11.2020. The Ld. AO comple ted the assessmen t on 22. 01.2021 und er section 143(3) r. w. sec tion 143(3A) and 143( 3B) of the A ct on inco me re tur ned with the observation that o n af oresaid two issues no addition is mad e.
4. In e xer cise of his powers vested in him u nde r sectio n 263 of the Ac t, the Ld. PCIT h eld the impugned order of the L d. AO as erroneou s and prejudic ial to the in te rest of Revenue. Accord ing to Ld. PCIT, the Ld. AO should have taken into consideration, the bind ing decision of Hon'ble Jurisdiction al High Cour t i. e. Hon'ble Punj ab & Haryan a High Cour t dated 19.02.2020 in the case of M ahend er Pal N arang vs. CBDT (2020) 423 ITR 13 (P& H) wherein the Hon'ble High Cour t has deal t wi th the con troversy arising from the judgment of Hon'ble Supr eme Cour t in the c ase of C IT vs. Gh ans hyam HUF date d 16th July, 2 009 relating to the tax ability of inte res t received on compensation or enhan ced compens ation and also the amendments/provisions of section 56(2)(viii) in troduced through F inanc e Act, 2009 effective from 01 .04.2010 on the above issue, which the Ld. AO f ailed to do. The Ld. PC IT pointed ou t that the SLP f iled ag ainst the ord er of the decision ( su pra) of the Hon'bl e P&H High Co urt has been d ismissed by th e H on'ble Suprem e Cour t v ide its order d ated 4th M arch, 2021 in M ah en der Pal Narang vs. CBDT (2021) 279 T axm an 74 (SC ). He , th erefore, se t as ide the impugned assessment or der with a directio n to pass an or der afresh after mak ing requisite enq uir ie s an d proper verif ication with regard to taxability of in terest on enhan ced compensation.
5. Aggrie ved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribun al and all the grou nds relate thereto.
6. The Ld. A R submitted th at the assessm ent orde r was neither erroneous nor prej udicial to the in te rest of Revenu e because (i) the Ld. AO h as p assed the orde r af ter making proper enqu iries d uring assessm en t proceedings; ( ii) the Ld . PCIT has exer cised the jur isd iction under sec tion 263 merely b ased on aud it objection, which is no t permiss ible and ( iii) the Ld. AO has val idly held th at in teres t unde r section 28 of Land Acqu isition Act, 1894 gr anted by the cour t is an in tegral par t of enhanced compens atio n and exempt under section 10(37 ) of the Ac t in c as e of th e assessee.
3|Page ITA No.2894/Del/2024 6.1 Elabor ating the above conten tions, the Ld. AR poin ted out that in notic e under section 142(1) of the Ac t dated 23.11.2020 (copy at P aper Book page 1-2), the L d. AO requ ired the assessee to f urnish d ocumentary evidence in support of claim th at the amount of Rs. 6,86, 17, 767/- is received u nder section 28 of the Land Acquisitio n Ac t. Th e assessee responded vide letter (c opy at pages 3-58 of Pape r Book) th at th e assessee received enhan ced c ompensatio n on c ompulsory acquisition of his agricultural l and by Hary ana Govt. of Rs. 6,86,17,767 /- which included inte rest under section 28 of Land A cquisition Act of Rs. 3,97,56,460/- wh ich was par t of enhan ced c omp ensation as he ld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C IT vs. Ghanshyam HUF (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). It was claimed th at the as sessee was entitled to exemption und er section 10(37 ) of th e Act. The explan ation of the assessee was ac ce pte d by the L d. AO who passed the impugned assess men t ord er date d 22.01.2021 without m aking any ad ditio n. The assessmen t was completed af ter c arrying out proper enquiries wh ich he ought to have carried out in respec t of the enhan ce d compens ation received by the assessee. It is no t a case of 'lac k of enquiry'. Merely bec ause in h is order the Ld. AO did not make elabor ate disc ussion but was s atisf ied with the explanation of the assessee, th e order could not be held to be erroneous. In support the decisions of Hon 'bl e Delhi High Cour t in C IT vs. S unbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 IT R 16 7 (Del) and dec ision of Hon'ble Raj asth an High Court in C IT vs. Ganp at Ram Bisnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) were c ite d.
6.2 The Ld. AR invited our attention to Aud it Memo at p ages 399-402 of Paper Book in the case of the assessee wherein IT O (Audit) Hisar raised an aud it objec tion obser vin g that inte res t under section 28 of Land Acquisition A ct of Rs. 3,97,56,460/- was ch argeable to tax under sectio n 56(2)(viii) of the A ct and also ref erred to the de cision s in the cases of Shr i Manjeet S ingh HUF v. UO I & Others in CWP No. 15506 of 2013; Shri Puneet Singh vs. CIT (2019) 110 taxm an.com 116 and Shri M ahendr a Pal Narang vs. CBDT in CWP No. 17971 of 2019. The Ld. AR c on tended that the orde r of the Ld. PCIT is merely based on the audit objection with ou t applying his independ ent m ind and without considering the subsequen t decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Cour t in the cases of (i) C IT vs. Govindbhai M amaiy a (2014) 52 taxm ann.com 270 (SC) ; (ii) UO I vs. Hari S ingh (2 018) 91 taxm ann.com 20 (SC); and (iii) ITO, TDS v. Muk tan angiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appe al No. 1847 5 of 20 I7 dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of decision of CIT vs.
4|Page ITA No.2894/Del/2024 Ghan shy am (HUF ) (2 009) 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has be en affirme d. The Ld. AR c ited decisions where in as sumption of jurisdiction under sec tion 263 on the bas is of aud it objection by the Audit wing of the Depar tmen t h as been hel d to be invalid.
6.3 The Ld. AR explained th at the enh anced c om pensation awarded by the appell ate authority/co urt to an as sessee on acquisition of capital asset is ch arge able to tax as capital gain in the year of receipt as per section 45(5) of th e Act. Howe ver, in the c ase of an i ndividual or HUF such capital g ain f rom compulsory ac quisitio n of agricultur al land being c apital asset is exempt from tax under section 10(37) of the Act.
6.4 The Ld. AR poin ted ou t the d istinctio n be tween inte res t awarded under section 34 and interes t paid on exces s compens ation under section 28 of Land Acquisitio n Act. Where as interest under sec tion 3 4 is pay able for d el ay in making p ayment af ter taking possession of th e ac quired land, interest under section 28 is awarded for accre tion in the value of land an d is therefore par t of enhan ced compens ation.
6.5 In Ghanshyam's c ase (su pra), the Hon'ble Supreme Cour t held that i nterest u nder section 2 8, unlike inte rest under section 34 is an accretion to the value and henc e it is a par t of enh anc ed c ompensation or consider ation which is not the case under section 34 of the 1894 Ac t.
6.6 As to the alleged non-consider ation of the dec ision of Hon'ble P & H High C our t in M ahender Pal N aran g's cas e (supra) by the Ld. AO, it is submitted th at the Hon' ble Supreme Court d ism issed the SLP of the assess ee filed ag ainst the said decision of Hon'ble P & H High Co urt in limine an d it is a settled law that the d ismissal of SLP in limine does not amoun t to affirmation of the vie w tak en by the High Court. Unless the judgment of the Hig h Court is affirme d, at least, with short r easoning, the s ame would no t amount to bind ing preced ent.
6.7 The Ld. AR elab orated that the insertion of section 145A, sec tion 145B, sec tion 56(2)(vi ii) and s ection 57(iv) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 200 9 w.e.f. 01.04.2010 does not change the char acter of interest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act gr anted by the co urt f rom 'c apital receipt' form ing par t of en hanced compensation as
5|Page ITA No.2894/Del/2024 env isaged in section 45(5) of the Act to 'revenue receipt' char geable to tax as income from other sources. The vie w take n by the Ld. AO th at interest under sec tio n 28 of Land Acquisition Act received by the assessee is exemp t unde r section 10(37) of the Ac t is not contr ary to l aw. His assessmen t order is, theref ore, not erroneous an d not liable to be revised under section 26 3 of the A ct.
7. The Ld. CIT-DR suppo rted the or der of th e Ld . PC IT. He placed on record a copy of the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Hary ana High Court in Mahender Pal N ar ang v . CBDT reported in (2020) 4 23 ITR 13 (P&H) wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that interest received on compens ation or enhan ced compensation under L and Acquisi tion Act, 18 94 is to be treated as 'income from other sources' and not unde r the he ad 'c apital gains'. The Ld. C IT-DR dre w our atten tion to para 9 and 10 of the dec ision (supra).
8. We have given our car ef ul though t to the rival subm issions an d perused the recor ds. The f acts are not in dispu te . The assessee received interes t of Rs. 3,97,56,460/- on enh anced compensatio n f rom HUD A af ter the compulsory ac quisition of h is agricultural l and on which TDS am oun ting to Rs. 39,7 5,646/- @ 10% was al so dedu cted. The assessee cl aimed the s aid in terest as exempt. On perusal of c ase records, the Ld. PC IT gathered th at the Ld. AO had completed the assessment with ou t carrying ou t nec essary and proper enqu iry which should have been made regarding appl icable judgments on the tax ability of interest on enh anced compe nsatio n. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryan a High Court has g iven the find ing th at interest received on compensation or enhan ced compens ation will be taxed as per amended provisio ns introduced throu gh Fin ance (No.2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2010 and the judgment of th e Hon' ble Sup reme Cour t in the case of CIT vs. Gh anshy am HUF wou ld not c ome to the rescue of the assessee. The Ld. PC IT th erefore re quired the assessee to show cause as to why an appropr iate orde r under section 263 of the Ac t be n ot passed. In response th e assessee submitt ed that the amount rece ived under section 28 of Land Acq uisition A ct is exemp t from tax relying on the dec ision of Delhi Benc h of the Tribunal in the c ase of Shri Puneet Sin gh, Karnal vs. AC IT pronounced on 08.12.2022 for AY 2011-12 wherein placing relian ce upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Cour t in the c ase of Ghanshyam HUF (supra) decided in f avour of the assessee. T he submission of the assessee was not acceptable to the Ld. PC IT in vie w
6|Page ITA No.2894/Del/2024 of the decision of Hon'ble P&H H igh Court in M ahend er Pal Narang vs,. CBDT and dismissal of SLP f iled ag ain st it by the H on'ble Supreme Cour t. He, therefore, s et asi de the assessmen t ord er and directed the Ld. AO to pass an orde r afresh.
9. As to the issue of lac k of necessar y an d prop er e nquiry during assessment pr oceed ing, the Ld. AR demons tr ated th at in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Ac t issued by the Ld. AO the assessee submitted th at inte rest of Rs. 3,97, 56,460/- received by the assessee form ed p ar t of enh anc ed c ompensatio n as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Cour t in Gh anshyam H UF's case (supr a) wh ich the as sessee claim ed as exempt under section 10(37) of the Act. Pages 1 to 61 of the Paper Book ref er. In our opinion, in the l ight of ev idence av ailabl e on records, i t c annot be al leg ed as done by th e Ld. PC IT that i t is a case of 'no enquiry' or 'lack of enquiry'. No doubt th at the Ld. AO did n o t discus s elabor atel y in th e assessmen t order bu t th at alone can no t make the order erroneous as held by the Hon' ble Delhi High Cour t in Sunbeam A uto Ltd.'s c ase (su pr a) and Hon' ble Rajas th an High Court in Ganp at Ram Bisnoi's c ase (supra). An incorrec t assu mption of f acts or an incorrec t appl icatio n of law will satisf y the requirement of the order being erroneous as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Cour t in Mal abar Industri al Co. Ltd . vs. C IT 243 ITR 83 (SC). None of thes e elements exis t in the case at hand .
10. Perusal of th e order of the Ld. PC IT sho ws th at he assumed the revisionary power under sec tion 263 of the Ac t mainly on the ground th at the Ld. AO pass ed the order not in accor dance with the binding decision of Hon'ble P & H High Cour t in M ahender Pal Nar ang's case (supr a) agains t whic h SLP stands d ism issed by th e Hon'ble Supreme Cour t. This is no t so. During assessmen t proceed ings in re spon se to notice under section 14 3(2) and 14 2(1) of the Ac t, with reference to specif ic query on rec eipt of inte res t unde r section 28 of Land Acqu isition Act, the assessee expl ained vide letter at pag es 3-5 of Pap er Book that inte rest rece ived under sec tion 28 of the Land Ac qu isition Act has been held to be par t of c ompensation by Apex Cour t in the case of C IT vs. Ghans hyam HUF rep orted as (2009) 315 ITR 1, the same being exempt un der section 10(37) of the Act h as not been included in the total income of th e asse ssee while filing return of income. The Ld . AO accepted the e xpl anation of the assessee.
7|Page ITA No.2894/Del/2024
11. The issue of amended provisions of sec tio n 5 6(2)( viii) by the Fin ance Act, 2009 and the d ec ision of Hon'ble P & H High Cour t in M ahender P al Nar ang's c ase was r ais ed by the Ld. PCIT in notice und er sec tion 263 on the b as is of audit objec tion (c opy of audit memo of IT O Hisar at p age s 399-402 of Paper Book). Before the Ld. PC IT the assessee explained that the amen ded provisions were no t in conn ec tion wi th the decision of Hon'ble Suprem e Co urt in Ghan shy am HUF's case bu t to m ake simple the taxation of inte res t income as earlier it was taxable on ac cru al/cash basis on the basis of ac counting principles as held by the dec ision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in R am a Bai v s. C IT (1990) 181 ITR 400. It was also exp lained th at inser tion of section 145A, 145B, 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv) by the Fin ance (No.2) Act, 2009 did not change the char acter of interes t under section 28 of the Lan d A cq uisition A ct from 'c apital receipt' form ing par t of en hanced compensation as env isaged in section 45(5) of the Act to 'revenue receipt' ch ar geable to tax as 'incom e f rom other sources'. It wa s al so explained to the Ld. PC IT that af ter analysing the provisions of sec tion 28 and 34 of Land A cquisition A ct the Ho n'bl e Supreme Cour t held in th e c ase of Ghans hyam HU F th at inte res t is dif ferent from compensation. However, interes t paid on the excess am ou nt under sec tion 28 depend s upon a cl aim b y a person wh ose land is ac quired wh ere as inte res t under sec tion 34 is for delay in m aking paymen t. This vital d ifferen ce need s to be kept in mind in deciding this m atter. Interest under sec tion 28 is par t of the amoun t of compensation whereas interest under sec tion 34 is only for delay in making payment af ter the com pensatio n amoun t is determ in ed. In terest under section 28 is a par t of enhan ced value of the l and wh ich is not the c ase in the matte r of paymen t of interest un der sec tion 34. It is thus ev ident that the view taken by th e Ld . AO that inte rest under sec tion 28 of Land A cquisiti on Act received by th e assessee is exempt under section 10(37) of the A ct is no t contr ary to l aw.
12. We no tice th at in CBDT Circul ar No. 5, dated 03.06.201 0 reported in (2010) 3 24 ITR (St.) 2 93, it is stated th at the Hon'ble Supreme Cour t in the c ase of R am a B ai Vs . C IT (supra) has held that arr ears of inte res t comp uted on delayed or enhanced compensation shall be tax able o n ac crual basis. This has caused undue h ardship to th e taxp ayers. With a vie w to mitigat e the har dship section 145A h as been substitu ted an d clause (v iii) in sub- sectio n (2) of section 56 has been inser ted by the Finance (No.2)
8|Page ITA No.2894/Del/2024 Act, 2009 so as to provide th at the interest rec eived on compens ation or on enh anced compens ation referred to in clause (b) of section 145A shall be assesse d as inco me from other sou rces in the year in whic h i t is received. It is thus ev ident that the amend ed provisions of section 56(2)(v iii) of the Act r.w. section 145A were brought on the s tatute to nullif y the ef fect of Hon'ble Supreme Cour t's ruling in the case of Ram a Bai an d not Ghanshyam HUF. Moreover, it is brought to our notice by th e Ld. A R th at the decis ion in Ghan shy am H UF was pronounced in July, 2016 an d the Fin ance B ill proposing amendmen t to sec tion 5 6 was laid in February 2016. So the inten tion of the legislatu re could never be the overruling of the r atio laid down in Gh anshyam HUF c ase. The issue in Ram a Bai c ase invol ved the tax ability in the year of receipt. The f acts and questio ns fo r determ in ation in R ama Bai's c ase were diff erent f rom those of Ghanshyam HUF's c ase. The position in Gh ans hyam HUF' a case has been aff irmed by th e Hon'ble Supreme Cour t in Hari Singh's case. Further, the Ld. AR subm itted befor e us th at SLP filed by the Revenue in Hari Sin gh's c ase has been withdrawn by the Revenue meaning thereby th at no w the issue has attained certainty.
13. We have gone through the decision of the Hon'ble P & H High Cour t in the c ase of Mahend er Pal Nar ang (supra) . In th at c ase the land of the assessee was acqu ired in A Y 2007 - 08 and 2008-09. The enhanced compensation was rece ived on 21.03.2016. In his retur n f iled for AY 2016- 17 he treated the inter est received under section 28 of th e 1894 Ac t as inco me fro m other sources and c lai med ded uction f or 50 % as p er sec tion 57( iv) of th e 1961 Ac t. The re turn was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. An appl ication under s ection 264 was made claiming th at by m istake the assessee treated the interest inc om e as inco me from othe r sources whereas th e sam e is p art of e nhan ced compens ation. The rev isional authority r ejecte d the appl ication und er section 264 on 30.1. 2019. It was i n this f actual m atrix that th e assessee f iled writ pe ti tion before the H on'ble P & H High Court. The question for consid eration was "whether af ter the insertion of section 5 6(2)(viii) and 57( iv) of the Act w.e.f. 01. 04.2010, can the assessee cl aim th at inte rest received under sec tion 28 of the Land Acquisition Ac t, 1894 will par tak e the ch ar ac ter of the compens ation an d woul d f all under the head "capi tal gain "
and no t "incom e from other sourc es" ? It was argue d by the assessee th at th ere is no amendment in s ec tion 10(3 7) and by inser tion of sec tions 56(2 )(viii) and 57(iv), the n ature of
9|Page ITA No.2894/Del/2024 inte res t under sec tion 2 8 of th e 18 94 A ct will rem ai n th at of compensation and decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Cour t in the c ase of Ghanshyam (HUF) and the decision of Hon'ble Guj rat High Court in Movaliya Bhikhubh ai B alabh ai vs. ITO TDS (201 6) 388 ITR 343 were relied upon.
14. It m ay be m entioned that the Hon'ble Su preme C ourt has affirme d its view taken in Ghanshyam HUF's case an d the dec ision of Gujr at High Cou rt in Movaliy a's case in its dec ision in the case of UO I vs. Hari Singh (2018) 91 taxm ann.com 20 (SC). The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Cour t in Hari S ingh's case (supra) was no t bro ught to th e notice of Hon'ble P & H High C our t while re nde rin g decision in Mahender Pal Nar ang's case (supra). Ho n'ble P&H High Cour t has thus rendered the dec ision in Mahender Pal Narang's c ase in its peculiar f ac ts and c ircumsta nces. Accord ingly, the opinion of the Ld. PC IT th at the Ld. AO should have passed the assessmen t in acc ord ance wi th the amended l aw and binding dec ision in Mahe nder Pal Narang's c ase (su pra) overlooking the decis io n of Hon'ble Supreme Cour t in G hanshyam's HUF's case is not sus tainable. Reliance of the Ld. C IT-DR on th e dec ision in Mahende r Pal Nar ang's c ase is mispl aced. Nee dless to emph asis that in V.M. S algaocar and Bro s Pv t. Ltd. vs. C IT 243 IT R 383 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Cour t has he ld that an orde r dismissing the SLP at the thr esh old with ou t detaile d reasons does not consti tu te any declar ation of law or a binding precedent. Therefore, overemph asising th e f ac t of dismissal of SLP in lim ine by the Hon'ble Suprem e Cour t in M ahender Pal 's case by the Revenue is n ot of any legal ass is tan ce to it.
15. Record reveals that the order of th e Ld. PC IT was prompte d solely by the audi t obj ec tion. Hon'ble P & H High Cour t has held in C IT vs. Sohan a W ooll en M ills (2008 ) 296 IT R 238 (P&H) that mere audit objection c anno t le ad to an inference that the order of the Ld. AO is erron eous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
16. S ince the order of th e Ld. AO is based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Cour t in Gh anshy am HUF (supra) on the iss ue of tax abil ity of interest received by the assessee under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, it can at b es t be said to be a debatable issue on which two views are possible and the Ld. AO accepts one of the v iews. In this vie w of the m atte r too, the Ld. PC IT can no t assume revision al jurisdic tion as held by th e Hon'ble Delhi High 10 | P a g e ITA No.2894/Del/2024 Cour t in C IT vs. H ind ustan Coc a Cola Beverages P Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 19 2 (Del. )
17. Accordingly, on the f acts and in the c ircums tances of the case as set out above, we hold that the order of the Ld. PCIT is not sustainable. Accord ingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and quash the impugne d order of th e Ld .
PCIT.
18. In the resul t, appeal of the assessee is allo wed ."
5. We adopt the above extracted detailed reasoning mutatis mutandis and reverse the learned PCIT's impugned revision direction in very terms. Ordered accordingly.
6. This assessee's appeal is allowed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25th March, 2025 Sd/- Sd/-
(ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 25th March, 2025.
RK/-
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
11 | P a g e