High Court Of Gauhati
CIT vs. U.M. Kidwal
Section 5
D.N. Baruah, & S.L. Saraf, JJ.
IT Ref. No. 2 of 1993
10th January, 1996
Counsel Appeared
Dr. A. K. Saraf & K. K. Gupta, for the Assessee : G. K. Joshi, for the Revenue
BY THE COURT
The following question has been referred under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for the opinion of this Court : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deciding that the interest received on delayed payment of compensation to be assessed on the accrual basis from year to year though the assessee followed the cash system of accounting ?”
We have heard Dr. A. K. Saraf, counsel appearing for the assessee, and Mr. G. K. Joshi, senior standing counsel for the Revenue. Dr. Saraf submits that this case is squarely covered by the decisions in K. S. Krishna Rao vs. CIT (1990) 84 CTR (SC) 164 : (1990) 181 ITR 408 (SC) and Rama Bai vs. CIT (1990) 84 CTR (SC) 164 : (1990) 181 ITR 400 (SC). We have perused the said judgments and find that the proposition of law laid down by the apex Court in the said decisions is applicable in this case. Following the decisions in the said cases, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the High Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no direction as to costs.
[Citation: 219 ITR 130]
