Cit vs Smt. Bhagwanti Kohli
2000 Latest Caselaw 1251 Del

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.

Heard. At the instance of the revenue, the Tribunal, Delhi Bench-A, has referred the following question under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion of this court :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in holding that the amount of interest (Rs. 63,156 + Rs. 41,682) awarded by the District Judge, which is the subject-matter of appeal filed by Government before the High Court, is not includible in the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1972-73 ?"

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessee in spite of service of notice.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessee in spite of service of notice.

3. The learned counsel for the revenue brought to our notice the following observation of the Tribunal which, we find, is of great relevance. For adjudicating the dispute before us :

3. The learned counsel for the revenue brought to our notice the following observation of the Tribunal which, we find, is of great relevance. For adjudicating the dispute before us :

"In the light of this finding, we do not propose to enter into the further controversy, whether such interest is to be taxed in one year or is to be spread over a number of years, for the present."

Conclusion of the Tribunal that they do not want to enter into controversy whether such interest is to be taxed in one year or is to be spread over, is not tenable in view of the decision of the apex court in Bikram Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector (1997) 224 ITR 551. Above being the position, we direct the Tribunal to re-hear the appeal and dispose of the same keeping in view guidelines indicated by the apex court in the abovenoted case.

4. The reference stands disposed of.

4. The reference stands disposed of.