IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.2214-CII of 2008 and ITA No.77 of 2008 Date of decision: 24.4.2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-Faridabad ......Appellant Versus Sh. Nathi Ram Dagar, HUF, s/o Sh.Hoshiar Singh, Village Jharsaintly, Distt. Faridabad ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'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 in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. ITA No.77 of 2008 1. The revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against the 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 assessment year 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 of interest cannot be made until the matter is finally settled CM No.2214-CII of 2008 and -2- ITA No.77 of 2008 by the High Court, in contradiction with the judgement of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryana following the judgement of Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Rama Bai (181 ITR 400) whereby interest on enhanced compensation is to be taxed on accrual basis irrespective of the pendency of appeal in higher courts in respect of enhanced compensation. [ITA No.176 of 2005 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 law as raised in this appeal have already been dismissed by this Court vide judgement dated 26.3.2008 passed in ITA No.490 of 2007 and other connected matters. 3. In the light of the above fact, no substantial question of law survives for our consideration in this appeal and accordingly, we decline to entertain the present appeal. Hence, this appeal is without any merit and the same is dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE April 24, 2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) ps JUDGE