TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and circumstances of the case, the Hon ble ITAT was correct in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 75,043 by holding that the receipt of the decretal amount could not be said to be revenue receipt and assessable in the year under consideration till the finality of the litigation? 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The assessee-opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the assessee ) is an exporter and assessed to tax in the status of registered firm and followed mercantile system of accountancy. In this case, the Civil Judge, Farrukhabad had by an order dated 14-12-1977 passed the decree against the Insurance Company for a sum of ₹ 1,55,003 in favour of the assessee. Against the said decree appeal was filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt in this case, had filed an appeal to the Hon ble High Court and the decretal amount was got deposited in the High Court under the orders of the Hon ble High Court and the same was released in favour of the contractor on his furnishing a bank guarantee of the said amount. In the said case, it was held that since an appeal had been filed to the High Court, against the order of the Additional Civil Judge, the appeal destroyed the finality of the judgment and consequently neither the amount of compensation of damages nor the amount of interest nor any cost become taxable with reference to the date of the judgment of the Additional Civil Judge falling under the assessment year 1977-78. Here in this case too the assessee had filed a suit for d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of ₹ 1,55,003 in favour of the assessee by the Civil Judge, Farrukhabad. Against the said order, appeal was filed before the High Court and in pursuance of the court order, decretal amount was deposited and was released in favour of the assessee on furnishing of a bank guarantee of the said amount in the year under consideration. The case of the assessee was that since the matter was subjudice and had not yet become final, the amount received against the bank guarantee should not be treated as the taxable income during the year under consideration. 6. In the case of CIT v. Hindustan Housing amp; Land Development Trust Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 524 (SC), the land was compulsorily acquired under the land acquisition proceedings. The arb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 001] 248 ITR 614. 8. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Housing amp; Land Development Trust Ltd. (supra) and the Bombay High Court in the case of Abdul Mannan Shah Mohammed (supra), we are of the view that the amount received by the assessee during the year under consideration in pursuance of the order of the High Court against the bank guarantee was not accrued to the assessee during the year under consideration inasmuch as no absolute right to receive the amount at that stage vested as the appeal was pending before the High Court and the entire decretal amount was subject-matter of dispute. 9. In view of the foregoing discussions, we answer the aforesaid questions, referred to us i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
