The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Man Singh

ITA No.228 of 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH ***** ITA No.228 of 2004 & other connected cases being ITA Nos.229, 230, 240, 234, 237 and 239 of 2004Date of decision : 15.7.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Vs. .....Appellant Man Singh .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. Avinash Jhingan, Advocate, for the respondent------ -ADARSH KUMAR GOEL (J): 1.This order will dispose of ITA Nos. 228, 229, 230, 234,237, 239 and 240 of 2004, filed by the appellants, as learned counselfor the parties state that common question of law is involved in allthese appeals. The facts are being taken from ITA No.228 of 2004. 2.This appeal has been preferred by the appellant underSection 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order ofITAT Bench 'SMC-I', Delhi, passed in ITA No.454/Del/2001 for theAssessment Year 1997-98. 3.Appeal was admitted to consider the following substantialquestions of law, proposed by the Revenue; (i)Whether the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in applying the ratio laid ITA No.228 of 2004 down in the case of CIT Vs. Hindustan and Land DevelopmentTrust Limited in the present case even after insertion of Section 45(5) in the Income Tax Act specifically for charging of enhancedcompensation in the year of receipt.Trust Limited in the present case even after insertion of Section 45(5) in the Income Tax Act specifically for charging of enhancedcompensation in the year of receipt. (ii)Whether the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in holding that neitheradditional compensation nor interest accrued or received thereoncan be taxed unless it attains finality from the Highest Court inspite of the fact that the additional compensation as well as interesthas actually been received by the assessee.additional compensation nor interest accrued or received thereoncan be taxed unless it attains finality from the Highest Court inspite of the fact that the additional compensation as well as interesthas actually been received by the assessee. 4.We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5.It is not disputed that after the insertion of Section 45 (5),the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan and LandDevelopment Trust Ltd.(supra), shall not apply, as held in subsequentjudgment inCIT, Faridabad Vs. Ghanshayam (HUF),(2009) 315ITR Page 1. 6.Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and above questionsare answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 7.A photocopy of this order be placed on each file of theconnected case.connected case. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)JUDGEJUDGE 15th July, 2010akmakm (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL )JUDGEJUDGE