R/Special Civil Application v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 991 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 923 of 2022=============================================KALPESH BABUBHAI DALAL Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD ============================================= Appearance: MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1M R BHATT & CO.(5953) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2============================================= CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALAandHONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE Date : 26/04/2022 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1.We have heard Mr. B.S. Soparkar, the learned counselappearing for the writ applicant and Mr. M.R. Bhatt, the learnedSenior Counsel appearing for the Revenue. 2.The pivotal issue that falls for our consideration iswhether the compensation received by the husband towardsthe death of his wife in a terrorist attack could be termed asincome as defined under Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act,1961? 3. The case on hand is one of reopening of assessment oftwo relevant Assessment Years; A.Y. 2013-14 and A.Y. 2014-15. If the compensation received cannot be termed as incomethen the proceedings initiated under Section 148 should failed.If it is otherwise then the matter may have to be looked into on its own merits. To recapitulate the facts, the wife of the writapplicant was a passenger of PAN AM 73 flight of 05.09.1986that came to be hijacked by the terrorists and in the saidunfortunate event, the wife got killed amongst many otherpassengers on the ill-fated flight. 4.A group of passengers signed what they termed a “JointProsecution Agreement”. The agreement declared that theparties to it had a common interest in pursuing the legalremedies against Libya and the individuals responsible for thehijacking. In 2006, the parties to the agreement filed a LawSuit against the Libyan Government. While the Law Suit waspending, the United States of America and Libya reached adiplomatic settlement relating to the claims against the LibyanGovernment for the acts of terrorism. Under the settlement,the United States agreed to bring about the termination of allthen pending terrorism related litigation against the Libya inAmerican Courts. In turn, Libya agreed to deposit $1.5 billion ina settlement fund. 5.The writ applicant received following amounts out of thesettlement fund: FY 12-13 Rs.8,11,64,663/-FY 13-14 Rs.34,24,526/-FY 14-15Rs.10,15,47,180/- 6.In the aforesaid factual background, both the writapplications have been filed as the Revenue seeks to reopenthe assessment for the relevant assessment years. 7.It appears that the department has thought fit to drop thereassessment proceedings. 8.In view of the aforesaid, now there is no good reason forus to determine the pivotal issue. 9.In such circumstances referred to above, both the writapplications are disposed of. Notice, if any, stands discharged.Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) NEHA