In above matter order of Tribunal had been passed on 7th Feb., 1984. later on assessee filed Miscellaneous Application urging that assessee had not been granted opportunity to file copy of plaint in suit filed by M/s Hero s Publicity Service, according to which M/s Hero s publicity service had claimed for fixation of standard rant of premises. Tribunal after hearing assessee, recalled paragraphs 6 and 7 of Tribunal s order dt. 7th Feb., 1984. Though Bench had first held matter to be part-heard, later on it directed that it should not be treated as part-heard. ground for our consideration in this Department appeal is regarding income to be included in respect of lease of premises at Bombay. These permises were at 4-A, 4th Floor, Veer Vulcan Insurance Building, Veer Narima Road, Bombay -400020 which had been taken as lease by assessee-company. It was sub-let to M/s Hero s Publicity Service at rent of Rs. 2,550 P.M. in 1967. This sub-lease expired on 31st Jan., 1972. Thereafter there was litigation between parties and ultimately Bombaly High Court passed consent order on 24th Sept., 1974, by which it was directed that M/s Hero s publicity Service were to deposit Rs. 2,550 per month in Court from Sept., 1974 onwards and assessee could withdraw above amount. This consent order was passed without prejudice to rights and contentions of parties regarding their respective claims. matter remained pending during all these years and ultimately both parties have settled matter out of Court and both suits were dismissed by order dt. 27th July, 1983. It was contended before assessing authority that in respect of these promises though rent of Rs. 2,550 p.m. was being paid according to agreement, tenants had instituted suits claiming that rent should be fixed at Rs. 1,004 p.m. which according to them, would be standard rent and not Rs. 2,550. IAC who made assessment, however, was of view that High Court had not disturbed earlier position as this rent continued to be paid through agency of Court. It may also be mentioned that income of assessee has been computed under head Business . When matter came before CIT(A), he book note of he rival litigation and observed that tenants were agreeable to pay only rent of Rs. 1,004 and not Rs. 2,550 p.m. and as this was standard rent same alone should be taken for purpose of taxation. It was also argued that order of High Court was only interim order and there was no accrual of income at rate of Rs. 2,550 p.m. It was also contended that claim of assessee was in jeopardy as result of litigation between parties. CIT (Appeals) accepted this claim of assessee and held that compensation for premised could be taken at Rs. 1,004 p. m. and allowed relief to assessee. Departmental Representative submitted before us that full picture was now before Tribunal that there was agreement between parties for payment of Rs. 2,550 p.m. and after this there was litigation between parties and whereas tenants wanted to pay only standard rent and not agreed rent, assessee wanted them either to vacate or to pay agreed rent. reference was made to order of High Court by which payment of rent at Rs. 2,550. p. m. was continued without any modification. It was also pointed out that though this was without prejudice to rights of two parties, these right have not been modified and ultimately both suits had been dismissed after compromise between parties. It was therefore, contended that CIT(A) erred in deleting this account and he should have held that income assessable was Rs. 2,550 p. m. He also submitted that direction of CIT(A) that income should be taken according to case of tenant has no basis because this was amount according to original agreement and Court s order also requires this amount to be paid in Court till disposal of matter. He also pointed out that ultimately both parties have withdrawn their claim and thus for all this period neither assessee would get enhanced rent over assessee above Rs. 2,550 nor he would have to refund any amount. In alternative he submitted that if submission of assessee was t o be accepted and right to receive arose as result of he compromise order in 1983, whole amount would become taxable in that year. ld. counsel for assessee, however, reiterated that as tight to receive this income was in jeopardy as result of cross litigation and due to expiry of lease agreement income as per original agreement had not accrued. He also pointed out that payment made was subject to rights of parties and subsequent compromise order should not be taken into consideration to decide issue in this year. He relied on several order including decision in case of CIT vs. A. Gajapathy Naidu (1964) 53 ITR 114 (SC), Khan Bhadur ahmed Alladin & Sons vs. CIT (1969) 74 ITR 651 (AP) and CIT vs. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. (1977) 108 ITR 380 (Cal). He contended that right to receive income arose after compromise order was passed and two suits were dismissed. We have considered facts of case and we are of view that ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that only amount of Rs. 1004 per month was to be brought to tax in hands of assessee. It is true that earlier lease agreement had expired and there were disputed between parties. It is admitted position that rent of Rs. 2,550 p. m. was payable under original agreement which expired on 31st Jan., 1972. After that litigation started and after Courts order amount of Rs. 2,550 per month was ordered to be paid to assessee through Court. Of course. Court made this subject to their final decision. matter remained pending for several years and ultimately parties compromised issues and both suits were dismissed resulting in payments already made at Rs. 2,550 p.m. income of assessee. claim of M/s Heros Publicity Service that standard rent of only Rs. 1,004 should be fixed could not be basis for determining business income earned by assessee in this period. Considering all circumstances. it has to be held that for this period amount of Rs. 2,550 per month was not only legal income of assessee but also is real income. It is not in dispute that no part of this payment has ultimately been refunded by assessee. accrual of income has to be taken on basis of he original agreement which was practically enforced by Court by passing interim order. In case assessee s plea that right to receive this income arose only in 1983 is accepted, whole amount would have become taxable in year of final order and that would be heavy burden on assessee. Thus taking legal position as well as practical aspect in view, correct thing would by to hold that assessee was assessable on income computed on basis of Rs. 2,550 p. m. and CIT(A) erred in holding that Rs. 1,004 p. m. only should be brought to tax. We reiterate discussion about case laws in para 7 of earlier order of Tribunal dt. 7th Feb., 1984, without repeating. This ground of Department is, therefore. accepted, and Revenue s appeal is allowed in part. *** INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASST.) v. SKODA INDIA (P) LTD