AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1928
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fidavit filed by the assessee. A perusal of the affidavit shows that the delay in filing of the appeal has been attributed to medical exigencies. In support the assessee has also filed medical certificate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu and Others Vs. Gobardhan Sao and Others reported as 2002 AIR 1201 has held that acceptance of explanation furnished seeking condonation of delay should be the rule and refusal an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide can be imputed to the defaulting parties. Taking a pedantic and hyper technical view of the matter, the explanation furnished should not be rejected when stakes are high and/or arguable points of facts and law are in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i) of the Act. 3.1 Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 18-02-2016, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted partial relief to the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to consider amount of interest that has been actually received by the assessee. Thus, the assessee got relief to the extent of interest due but not received. 3.2 The ld. AR submitted that the interest received u/s. 28 of the L.A. Act is capital in nature and hence is not taxable. In support of his submissions the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of Dnyanoba Shajirao Jadhav Vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No. 168/PUN/2016 for the assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 28 of the L.A. Act amounting to Rs.1,14,17,198/-, apart from compensation on account of acquisition of land. 6. The Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Dnyanoba Shajirao Jadhav Vs. Income Tax Officer (supra) after considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) reported as 315 ITR 1 and in the case of Bikram Singh & Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. reported as 224 ITR 551 held that the interest awarded u/s. 28 of the L.A. Act is in the nature of solatium and is integral part of compensation. The said interest is in the nature of capital receipt and hence not exigible to tax under the provisions of Income Tax Act. Whereas, interest received u/s. 3....