COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. THAKUR SAJJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (which will hereinafter be referred to as "the Act"), requiring the Tribunal to state a case and refer the following two questions of law for the decision of this court:

(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to the reference are these : THE assessee is an erstwhile jagirdar of Jagir Village, Raipur, in the former State of Jodhpur. His jagir was resumed on November 24, 1955, under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, and the compensation was determined as from the date of resumption. However, it appears that the compensation was not paid for a considerable time, and, therefore, interest amounting to Rs. 15,410, accrued to the assessee for the period commencing from November 24, 1955, to January 1, 1963, which was paid during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1973-74. THE ITO included the aforesaid amount of interest in the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1973-74. Aggrieved by the decision of the ITO, the assessee filed appeal before the AAC, who confirmed the order of the ITO in this respect. THEreupon, the assessee filed a further appeal before the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, which by its order dated May 16, 1978, allowed the assessee's appeal and held that the amount of Rs. 15,410 could not be added to the income of the assessee for the relevant accounting year. THE revenue was not satisfied with the order of the Tribunal and, therefore, it made an application before the Tribunal for referring the aforesaid questions of law to this court but the Tribunal by its order dated February 14, 1979, rejected the application. Hence, this present application under Section 256(2) of the Act.

(3.) AS already stated above, interest accrued to the assessee in the present case also in each year under Sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. In our opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal appears to be well-settled, and no useful purpose would be served by calling for a reference.