Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Horam (Indl

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 188 of 2010Date of Decision: 5.7.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Versus Horam (Indl.) ....Appellant. ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dugga, Advocate for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1.This order shall dispose of ITA Nos. 188 and 189 of 2010. 2.This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 14.5.2009 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C”, New Delhi in ITA No.3216/(Del)/08 for the assessment year 2000-01. 3.The land of the assessee was acquired. The AssessingOfficer taxed the compensation in the year, i.e. 2000-01. On appeal,the CIT (A) vide his order dated 25.8.2008 set aside the decision of theAssessing Officer on the ground that the matter was pending in appealand till the issue of compensation was finalized, the income cannot besaid to have accrued or arisen, which was upheld by the Tribunalfollowing the judgment of this Court in Chandi Ram and others v. CIT, ITA No. 188 of 2010 -2- 217 CTR (P&H) 113. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ghanshyam (HUF), (2009)315 ITR 1 (SC), the aforesaid judgment no longer stands. 4.Identical matters bearing ITA Nos. 133, 143, 145, 146 and159 of 2010 have been taken up today and on the statement of learnedcounsel for the parties, the matters have been remanded to theAssessing Officer for determining the year of taxability afresh in the lightof judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam (HUF)'s case(supra). 5.Since the matter is covered by the judgment of the Hon'bleSupreme Court in Ghanshyam (HUF)'s case (supra) and is beingremanded to the Assessing Officer to look into it afresh in view of orderspassed in similar cases, we do not consider it necessary to issue noticeto the respondent as it would serve no useful purpose. 6.In view of the above, we allow this appeal, set aside theimpugned orders and remand the matter to the Assessing Officer fordetermining the year of taxability afresh in terms of decision of theHon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam (HUF)'s case (supra). It is,however, made clear that if the respondent-assessee is aggrieved bythis, he can approach this Court. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 189 of 2010 Date of Decision: 5.7.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Versus Prasadi ....Appellant. ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dugga, Advocate for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.For orders, see ITA No. 188 of 2010 [Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Faridabad v. Horam (Indl.)] (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 5, 2010(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)gbsJUDGE