IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.2669-CII of 2008 and ITA No.177 of 2008 Date of decision: 12.5.2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-Faridabad ......Appellant Versus Sh. Sukh Ram Dagar ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant-revenue. * * * Rajive Bhalla, J .(Oral) CM No.2669-CII of 2008 Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 65 days in re-filling the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 65 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. ITA No.177 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', in ITA No.2565/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.2669-CII of 2008 and ITA No.177 of 2008 -2- 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. After addressing arguments for some time, counsel for the appellant is unable to distinguish the view taken by this Court in ITA No.490 of 2007 titled as The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Shri Hardwari Lal, decided on 26.3.2007 and fairly concedes that the question of law framed herein is squarely covered against the revenue by this opinion recorded in the aforesaid judgement. 3. In view of what has been stated hereinbefore, the appeal is dismissed. (RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE May 12, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE