The Commissioner Of Incometax-Faridabad v. Sh. Nathi Ram Dagar, Huf

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.2214-CII of 2008 andITA No.77 of 2008Date of decision: 24.4.2008 The Commissioner of IncomeTax-Faridabad Versus ......Appellant Sh. Nathi Ram Dagar, HUF, s/o Sh.Hoshiar Singh, Village Jharsaintly, Distt. Faridabad ......Respondent CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLAHON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present:Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant-revenue. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J . CM No.2214-CII of 2008 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 36 days inrefiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. ITA No.77 of 2008 1.The revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260Aof the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) againstthe order dated 31.1.2007 passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal,Delhi Bench 'H', New Delhi in ITA No.2564/Del/2003 for the assessmentyear 1999-2000` raising the following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,the Hon'ble ITAT is right in holding that assessment ofinterest cannot be made until the matter is finally settled by the High Court, in contradiction with the judgement ofHon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryanafollowing the judgement of Apex Court in the case ofCITv. Rama Bai(181 ITR 400) whereby interest onenhanced compensation is to be taxed on accrual basisirrespective of the pendency of appeal in higher courts inrespect of enhanced compensation. [ITA No.176 of2005 and ITA No.177 of 2005 in the cases of CIT,Faridabad v. Naresh Kumar and CIT, Faridabad v.Dilbagh Singh, respectively]?” 2.The appeals of the revenue raising the similar question of lawas raised in this appeal have already been dismissed by this Court videjudgement dated 26.3.2008 passed in ITA No.490 of 2007 and otherconnected matters. 3.In the light of the above fact, no substantial question of lawsurvives for our consideration in this appeal and accordingly, we decline toentertain the present appeal. Hence, this appeal is without any merit andthe same is dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE April 24, 2008ps (RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE