The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Sh.laxman Singh

ITA No.327 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH ITA No.327 of 2009 Date of decision:26.04.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Versus ...Appellant Sh.Laxman Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:Ms.Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the petitioner.for the petitioner. Mr.Avneesh Jhingan, Advocate, for the assessee-respondent. 1.To be referred to the reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961(for brevity `the Act') is directed against orderdated 12.9.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DelhiBench (for brevity `the Tribunal') in ITA No. 1513/Del/2008 for theassessment year 2000-01. The only issue raised before the Tribunal was with regard totaxability of enhanced compensation and interest thereon. The Tribunalwhile agreeing with the order passed by the CIT(A) on 6.2.2008 has placedreliance on a judgment of this Court rendered in LPA No.1852 of 2001. ITA No.327 of 2009 The tribunal took a view that income by way of enhanced compensationcould not have accrued to the assessee and the CIT (A) was justified inreducing the amount while computing the total income. Learned counsel for the revenue has placed reliance on ajudgment rendered in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (S.C.)and argued that after amendment of Section 45 (5) of the Act w.e.f.1.4.1998,the amount of enhanced compensation is deemed to be income of theprevious year, in which it is received. She claims that the substantialquestion of law is covered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Learned counsel for the assessee-respondent, has not been ableto dispute the aforesaid view. However, he has argued by drawing ourattention to page 24 of the paper book that a number of other argumentswere raised before the CIT(A), which had not been dealt with at that stagefor the reason that on the issue of taxability, the matter stood decided infavour of the assessee-respondent. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal ofthe paper book, we are of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal isnot sustainable in light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court inGhanshyam's case (supra). Accordingly, the orders of the Tribunal as wellas that of the CIT(A) have to be set aside. As a sequel to the above discussion, the impugned order of theTribunal is set aside. However, in view of the submissions made by thelearned counsel for the assessee-respondent that some other issues whichhave not been decided by the Tribunal of the CIT(A) are required to bedecided. Therefore, we remit the matter back to the Tribunal for decidingany issue which has not been decided earlier. For the aforesaid purpose, the ITA No.327 of 2009 parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the CIT(A) on27.5.2010. The CIT (A) shall decide all the remaining issues as per law. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE 26.04.2010mk (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)JUDGE