IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 188 of 2010 Date of Decision: 5.7.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ....Appellant. Versus Horam (Indl.) ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dugga, Advocate for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This order shall dispose of ITA Nos. 188 and 189 of 2010. 2. This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 14.5.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C”, New Delhi in ITA No. 3216/(Del)/08 for the assessment year 2000-01. 3. The land of the assessee was acquired. The Assessing Officer taxed the compensation in the year, i.e. 2000-01. On appeal, the CIT (A) vide his order dated 25.8.2008 set aside the decision of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the matter was pending in appeal and till the issue of compensation was finalized, the income cannot be said to have accrued or arisen, which was upheld by the Tribunal following the judgment of this Court in Chandi Ram and others v. CIT, ITA No. 188 of 2010 -2- 217 CTR (P&H) 113. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ghanshyam (HUF), (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC), the aforesaid judgment no longer stands. 4. Identical matters bearing ITA Nos. 133, 143, 145, 146 and 159 of 2010 have been taken up today and on the statement of learned counsel for the parties, the matters have been remanded to the Assessing Officer for determining the year of taxability afresh in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam (HUF)'s case (supra). 5. Since the matter is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam (HUF)'s case (supra) and is being remanded to the Assessing Officer to look into it afresh in view of orders passed in similar cases, we do not consider it necessary to issue notice to the respondent as it would serve no useful purpose. 6. In view of the above, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for determining the year of taxability afresh in terms of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam (HUF)'s case (supra). It is, however, made clear that if the respondent-assessee is aggrieved by this, he can approach this Court. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 5, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 189 of 2010 Date of Decision: 5.7.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ....Appellant. Versus Prasadi ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dugga, Advocate for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. For orders, see ITA No. 188 of 2010 [Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Horam (Indl.)] (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 5, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE