2020 (5) TMI 191

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao) 1. Heard Sri B.Narsimha Sarma, Senior Counsel for Central Taxes appearing for the appellant. 2. This Appeal is preferred under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') by the Revenue challenging the Order dt.10.07.2019 in ITA.No.945/H/13 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B', Hyderabad. 3. With regard to the ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Section 2(47) of the Act did not materialize as per the timeline mentioned in Section 54F of the Act; and that there was a delayed receipt of sale consideration of Rs. 5,97,945/- which should be treated as income from other sources. He accordingly set aside the assessment order and directed fresh assessment by order dt.14.03.2013. 7. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed a fresh assessment ord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sources'; that there is no finding by the Commissioner of Income Tax as to what was the rate of interest for the assessment year for the delayed payment; and hence the payment can only be construed as balance of sale consideration. It also held that there was no mistake committed by the Assessing Officer while passing his order, which is prejudicial to the Revenue. 10. The Tribunal then considere....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... he would be entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 54F of the Act. 11. Assailing the same, this Appeal is filed. 12. Though counsel for the appellant sought to contend that the order passed by the Tribunal is unsustainable, we do not agree. 13. The finding of the Tribunal that the amount received by the assessee from his purchaser of Rs. 5,97,945/- cannot be termed as 'interest' be....