These two appeals have been filed by revenue on 14th December, 2000 against orders of Ld. CIT(A), Shimla, dated 18th September, 2000 in case of assessee in relation to assessment orders under section 143(3) for assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96. 2. In these appeals Revenue has disputed orders of Ld. CIT(A) deleting addition made by Assessing Officer on account of enhanced compensation as well as on account of interest on enhanced compensation. Facts of case leading to these two appeals briefly are that assessee's land was acquired by Land Acquisition Officer, Panchkula vide award dated 16th February, 1989. Thereafter, enhanced compensation was ordered by District Sessions Judge on 6th May, 1993. Against that order both assessee as well s Land Acquisition Officer filed appeal before Punjab and Haryana High Court. Hon'ble High Court by their order dated 18th February, 1994 gave directions to executing Court to release amount of enhanced compensation to assessee against adequate security. assessee received enhanced compensation along with interest on different dates from 10th June, 1994 to 28th November, 1995 as per particulars mentioned in impugned orders. Thereafter, at request of assessee Land Acquisition Officer issued TDS Certificate only on 22nd November, 1996. assessee filed voluntary returns of income for financial years 1996-97 and 1997- 98 relating to assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 for assessments years 1994-95 and 1995-96. Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 on 11th December, 1996. assessee declared total income of Rs. 56,026 in relation to assessment year 1994-95 and Rs. 41,000 in relation to assessment year 1995-96 in return filed on 12th October, 1998 in response to notice under section 148. In these returns assessee repeated income as declared during original assessment proceedings. assessee argued that it had received enhanced compensation along with interest amounting to Rs. 20,67,441 on 21st November, 1996 and, therefore, assessee had shown entire interest income received on enhanced compensation on cash/receipt basis in return of income filed for assessment year 1997-98. Ld. Assessing Officer found that assessee had neither received amount of enhanced compensation nor amount of interest on such enhanced compensation during financial year 1996-97 relevant to assessment year 1997-98. entire payments had been received by assessee prior to commencement of financial year 1996-97. Hence, assessee was not justified in declaring any income in this behalf in relation to assessment year 1997-98. According to Ld. Assessing Officer, provisions of section 45(5)(b) were very clear and irrespective of method of accounting followed by assessee. amount of enhanced compensation was assessable only in previous year in which enhanced compensation was received by assessee. assessee had received total sum of Rs. 28,82,660 during financial year 1994-95 relevant to assessment year 1995-96. That amount included interest on enhanced compensation, computed at Rs. 9,42,537. Ld. Assessing Officer, therefore, held that assessee was liable to capital gains tax in relation to amount of enhanced compensation of Rs. 13,40,123 under provisions of section 45(5)(b). 3. Ld. Assessing Officer further found that total amount of interest received by assessee on enhanced compensation aggregated to Rs. 20,67,441. That interest was paid for period 16th February, 1989 to 19th January, 1994. Assessing Officer attributed amount of interest to various assessment years as per working given at page 5 of assessment order for assessment year 1995-96. He attributed sum of Rs. 3,68,384 to period 1-4- 1993 to 19th January, 1994 and assessed sum as assessee's income for 1994-95. 4. During course of hearing before ld. CIT(A), assessee disputed assessment of enhanced compensation and interest on enhanced compensation as enumerated in foregoing paragraphs. assessee argued that payment had been made to assessee after furnishing of adequate security and amount of enhanced compensation was in dispute before Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court during relevant previous years. assessee placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 524. Ld. CIT(A) held that quantum of enhanced compensation receivable was in dispute before higher Court. In event of amount of compensation being reduced interest was also likely to be amount of compensation being reduced interest was also likely to be reduced. She, therefore, held that only interest on undisputed amount could be brought to tax in assessment year 1994-95. She directed Assessing Officer accordingly. For assessment year 1995-96 ld. CIT(A) deleted assessment of sum of Rs. 13,40,123 on ground that this amount of enhanced compensation was in dispute. Aggrieved by these orders revenue is in appeal before us. 5. During course of hearing before us ld. DR argued that Ld. CIT(A) erred in applying judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. (supra) because in case of assessee before us payment had been made to assessee. He kly relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Rama Bai v. CIT [1990] 181 ITR 400. ld. DR also referred to page 7 of assessment order for assessment year 1996-97 and pointed out that assessee had agreed that amount of enhanced compensation had been wrongly shown in assessment year 1997-98 and had stated that assessee intended to file revised return. assessee requested that refund arising to assessee on filing of revised return for assessment year 1997-98 may be adjusted for tax payment to be credited for assessment year 1995-96 which request had been accepted by Assessing Officer on ground that same income could not be assessed twice. ld. DR, therefore, argued that as far as assessment year 1995-96 was concerned, sum of Rs. 13,40,123 had been assessed on agreed basis and, therefore, ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting same. 6. Ld. Authorised Representative of assessee argued that in case of assessee amount of enhanced compensation had been disputed by State Government and their appeal was pending before Hon'ble High Court. On such facts judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. (supra) squarely applied. Ld. AR of assessee also referred to CBDT Circular No. 495, dated 22nd September, 1987 being explanatory notice to Finance Act, 1987. Ld. AR referred to following paragraphs of aforesaid CBDT Circular: '24.5 Under existing provisions where capital gains accrue or arise by way of compulsory acquisition of assets, additional compensation is taken into consideration for determining capital gain for year in which transfer took place. To provide for rectification of assessment of year in which capital gain was originally assessed, section 155(7A) was introduced. additional compensation is awarded in several stages by different appellate authorities and necessitates rectification of original assessment at each stage. This causes great difficulty in carrying out required rectification and in effecting recovery of additional demand. Another difficulty which arises is in cases where original transferor dies and additional compensation is received by his legal heirs. In latter type of cases, proceedings have to be initiated against legal heirs. Repeated rectification of assessments on account of enhancement of compensation by different Courts often results in mistakes of computation of tax. 24.6 With view to removing these difficulties, Finance Act, 1987 has inserted new sub-section (5) in section 45 to provide for taxation of additional compensation in year of receipt instead of in year of transfer of capital asset. additional compensation will be deemed to be income in hands of recipient even if actual recipient happens to be person different from original transferor by reason of death, etc. For this purpose cost of acquisition in hands of receiver of additional compensation will be deemed to be nil. compensation awarded in first instance would continue to be chargeable as income under head 'Capital gains' in previous year in which transfer took place.' 7. According to Ld. AR, these paragraphs suggested that provisions of section 45(5) had been introduced so as to exclude requirement of rectification. Hence, provisions of section 45(5) applied only when amount of additional compensation had become final. 8. We have carefully considered rival submissions. As far as Revenue's appeal for assessment year 1995-96 is concerned, Ld. DR has rightly pointed out to remarks of Ld. Assessing Officer at page 7 of assessment order that it follows that assessee agreed to assessment of sum of Rs. 13,40,123 as income from capital gains under section 45(5)(b) for assessment year 1995-96 subject to assessee being allowed to revise return for assessment year 1997-98 and refund arising on such revised return being adjusted against tax payment for assessment year 1995-96. It appears that this aspect of matter escaped attention of Ld. CIT(A). Even otherwise we find that after enactment of provisions of section 45(5) judgment in case of Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. (supra) cannot be applied. We are supported in this view by order of Tribunal. 9. As far as assessment year 1994-95 is concerned, Ld. DR has rightly pointed out that in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Rama Bai v. CIT [1990] 181 ITR 400, amount of interest on enhanced compensation has to be assessed on accrual basis for each year to which it pertains. At same time, there is merit in contention of Ld. AR of assessee that quantum of additional compensation awarded by District Sessions Judge was in dispute before Hon'ble High Court in appeals filed by both assessee and State Government. In our opinion, answer to this problem is provided by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai v. ACED [1980] 122 ITR 21. In that judgment given in context of Estate Duty Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where amount of compensation was not final assessee's right to receive compensation will have to be estimated value having regard to peculiar nature of property, its marketability and surrounding circumstances including risk or hazard of litigation looming large at relevant date. In that judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that while estimated value cannot be fully amount awarded by collector, it can never be equal to tall claim made by claimant nor equal to claim actually awarded by Civil Court inasmuch as risk or hazard of litigation would be detracting factor. In our view guidelines laid down in aforesaid judgment should fairly be applied for assessment of amount of interest on additional compensation in cases where amount of enhanced compensation itself is in dispute. We, therefore, restore this issue to file of Ld. Assessing Officer for determination of interest on enhanced compensation in accordance with guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai v. ACED [1980] 122 ITR 21. 10. In result, while Revenue's appeal for assessment year 1994-95 is allowed, for statistical purposes Revenue's appeal for assessment year 1995- 96 shall be treated as partly allowed. Per N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member 11. I have gone through order proposed by my ld. Brother. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with conclusions arrived at by my ld. brother. I would however like to highlight fact that assessee in present case follows mercantile system of accounting. questions for consideration on facts of present case are: (a) Whether enhanced compensation received by assessee was taxable in hands of assessee as income despite fact that quantum of enhanced compen-sation awarded is subject-matter of proceedings before appellate forum by State Government as well as by assessee and quantum of enhanced compen-sation has not attained finality and assessee has received part of enhanced compensation and interest on enhanced compensation pursuant to interim orders passed by appellate Court? (b) Whether fact that assessee has offered income for taxation though in different assessment year would be sufficient to bring amount to tax? 12. As far as question (b) is concerned, law is well-settled that assessee is entitled to resile from position erroneously taken when filing return. admission or acquiescence cannot be foundation for assessment, and it is always open to assessee to demonstrate and satisfy Assessing Officer that particular income was not taxable in his hands and that it was returned under erroneous impression of law. following decided cases are on point: CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 81 ITR 303 (Delhi) R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand v. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 409 (All.) Abdul Qayume v. CIT [1990] 184 ITR 404 (All.). 13. Article 256 of Constitution mandates that no tax can be levied and collected except by authority of law. It would therefore be necessary that there must be legal liability to pay tax in accordance with law. As to whether there was liability on part of assessee to pay tax on receipt in question would therefore depend on answer to question (a) above. 14. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court had occasion to examine similar question in case of Chief CIT v. Smt. Shantavva [2004] 267 ITR 67. following three questions of law were considered by Hon'ble High Court: '(i) Whether Tribunal was correct in holding that amount received by assessee does not fall within ambit of section 45(5)(b) of Act? (ii) Whether Tribunal was correct in applying principle laid down in CIT v. A.B.V. Gowda [1986] 157 ITR 697 (Kar.) in spite of provisions of section 45(5)(b)? (iii) Whether Tribunal was correct in holding that words 'received' and 'deemed' used in section 45(5)(b) will not apply to receipt of amounts in pursuance of interim orders?' After making reference to provisions of section 45(5)(b), Hon'ble Court has held as follows: 'Section 45(5)(b) will be attracted only when assessee receives 'enhanced compensation', in pursuance of final award/order of Court, Tribunal or other authority increasing compensation. If any amount is received after stay of award, in pursuance of any interim order, as payment subject to final result, it will not be amount received as 'enhanced compensation' contemplated under section 45(5)(b), but only interim payment received subject to final decision. It will attract section 45(5)(b) only when final decision is rendered. We are supported in said view by decision of Supreme Court and decision of this Court. In CIT v. Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 524, Supreme Court held: 'In present case, although award was made by arbitrator on July 29, 1955, enhancing amount of compensation payable to assessee, entire amount was in dispute in appeal filed by State Government. Indeed, dispute was regarded by Court as real and substantial, because assessee was not permitted to withdraw sum of Rs. 7,36,691 deposited b y State Government on April 25, 1956, without furnishing security bond for refunding amount in event of appeal being allowed. There was no absolute right to receive amount at that stage. If appeal was allowed in its entirety, right to payment of enhanced compensation would have fallen altogether.' In CIT v. A.B.V. Gowda [1986] 157 ITR 697, this Court held as follows: 'A mere claim to income without enforceable right thereto cannot, therefore, be regarded as accrued income for purpose of Income-tax Act.' above principles are squarely applicable and section 45(5)(b) does not change position in any manner. Section 45(5)(b) shifts date of 'income' from date of acquisition and from date of determination of compensation by Court/Tribunal/authority, to date of receipt of compensation in pursuance of enhancement by Court/Tribunal/authority. Two conditions have to be satisfied for applicability of section 45(5)(b): (i) There should be enhancement of compensation by Court/Tribunal/authority. (ii) assessee should receive payment of such enhanced compensation. When award of reference Court enhancing compensation is stayed and interim payment is ordered as condition of such stay or otherwise and is paid, pending final decision, neither of two conditions are satisfied. amount received in pursuance of interim order by furnishing security, not being amount payable in pursuance of enforceable order or decree increasing compensation, cannot be considered as receipt of enhanced compensation. Therefore, all three questions have to be answered against revenue. We find no error in order of Tribunal and appeal is dismissed as having no merit.' 15. Besides above, identical views of Tribunals of Mumbai and Jaipur Benches in context of provisions of section 45(5) of Act had come up for consideration before Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court respectively in cases of CIT v. Abdul Mannan Shah Mohammed [2001] 248 ITR 614 and CIT v. Jeevan & Sons [2000] 161 CTR (Raj.) 242 and Hon'ble High Courts have agreed with view of Tribunal holding that no substantial question of law arises. Mumbai Bench, Delhi Bench as well as Pune Bench (which was authored by me) of Tribunal have also taken identical views in context of section 45(5) of Act in following cases: Jehangir P. Vazifdar v. ITO [1992] 42 ITD 67 (Bom.). Smt. Gulab Sundri Bapna v. Dy. CIT [2001] 79 ITD 455 (Delhi). Rikabchand M. Lalwani (HUF) v. Jt. CIT [2003] 81 TTJ (Pune) 964. 16. My learned brother however in taking contrary view has followed decision of Delhi Bench of Tribunal in case of Asstt. CIT v. Trilok Singh [IT Appeal Nos. 708 to 711 (Delhi) of 2001, dated 18-6-2004]. I have perused said order of Tribunal and I find that view expressed by Tribunal is contrary to preponderance of judicial opinion on issue expressed by decisions of Tribunal as well as decisions of Hon'ble High Courts. There is however decision of Hon'ble A.P. High Court in case of CIT v. M. Sarojini Devi [2001] 116 TAXMAN 613 in which there appears to be contrary view expressed. I shall therefore refer to said decision. facts in aforesaid case were that lands belonging to assessee were acquired by Government in year 1966 and compensation was awarded by LAO. On reference, compensation at higher rate was awarded. assessee was held to be entitled to interest of Rs. 43,642 for period 18-5-1966 to 9-12-1975. State Government went in appeal against enhancement made in appeal. appeal before Supreme Court was pending. ITO held that entire amount of interest on enhanced compensation should be brought to tax for assessment year 1976-77. order was challenged by way of appeal. AAC held that as matter had not become final and appeal was before Supreme Court, amount of interest received by assessee could not be taxed. He relied on judgment of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Sankari Manickyamma [1976] 105 ITR 172. On further appeal before Tribunal, same view was upheld relying upon same judgment. Thereafter at instance of revenue, following question was framed and referred to Court: 'Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, interest on compensation for assessment year for which interest should be brought to tax is one in which it was awarded or year in which issue of quantum of compensation becomes final?' Court reframed question and held as follows: 'The question, which needed to be answered, is 'whether Assessing Officer has to wait till final disposal by final Court in acquisition matter before interest accrued is taxed?' Therefore, we are refraining question in above-mentioned phraseology and we find that question is already answered by Supreme Court in Smt. Rama Bai v. CIT [1990] 181 ITR 400. fact that compensation was enhanced by High Court in appeal and interest accruing to it was received by assessee makes him liable to pay tax. However, it will be spread over period for which it accrued to him, in accordance with Supreme Court judgment. In any case, if judgment enhancing compensation in favour of assessee is reversed by Supreme Court, then assessee, even after payment of tax on accrued interest, would not be remediless. He can always seek refund of tax so paid, by making appropriate application for rectification of assessment. Tribunal relied on judgment in Smt. Sankari Manickyamma's case (supra) that obviously stands reversed in view of judgment of Supreme Court judgment in Smt. Rama Bai's case (supra). For all these reasons, we answer question in favour of revenue as indicated above and against assessee.' 17. As can be seen from facts in aforesaid case, assessment year was 1976-77 prior to introduction of section 45(5) in IT Act. provisions of section 45(5) of Act as introduced by Finance Act, 1987 came into effect only from 1-4-1988. decision of Hon'ble A.P. High Court, therefore, runs contrary to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Hindusthan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 524. 18. I would, therefore, respectfully following decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court as well as Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Rajasthan High Court and view expressed by various Benches of Tribunal, hold that enhanced compensation could not be brought to tax in years under consideration as dispute on quantum of enhanced compensation had not attained finality. interest on enhanced compensation would also for very same reason not be liable to tax. CIT(A) in my view had rightly allowed appeal of assessee and directed addition made by Assessing Officer to be deleted. I would therefore dismiss both appeals by revenue. appeals by revenue are therefore dismissed. REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 255(4) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 As there is difference of opinion between two Members, following questions are referred to Hon'ble President for opinion of Third Member: 'Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, enhanced compensation received by assessee was taxable in hands of assessee as income despite fact that quantum of enhanced compensation awarded is subject-matter of proceedings before appellate forum by State Government as well as by assessee and quantum of enhanced compensation has not attained finality and assessee has received part of enhanced compensation and interest on enhanced compensation pursuant to interim orders passed by appellate Court?' REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 255(4) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 Inadvertently question arising for consideration of Third Member on difference of opinion for assessment year 1994-95 was omitted to be referred. following question is, therefore, being referred to Hon'ble President for opinion of Third Member relating to assessment year 1994-95: 'Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, interest received on disputed enhanced compensation which is subject-matter of litigation in appeals before appellate forum can be taxed without attaining finality?' THIRD MEMBER ORDER Per R.P. Garg, Vice President. - President, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has originally referred following question for my opinion as Third Member on difference of opinion between two Members: 'Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, enhanced compensation received by assessee was taxable in hands of assessee as income despite fact that quantum of enhanced compensation awarded is subject-matter of proceedings before appellate forum by State Government as well as by assessee and quantum of enhanced compensation has not attained finality and assessee has received part of enhanced compensation and interest on enhanced compensation pursuant to interim orders passed by appellate Court?' 2. This question arises in appeal for assessment year 1995-96. There was another difference between two Members with regard to taxability of interest received on aforesaid disputed enhanced compensation and that arose in appeal for assessment year 1994-95. President, therefore, arose in appeal for assessment year 1994-95. President, therefore, referred following question also for my opinion as arising in appeal for assessment year 1994-95: 'Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, interest received on disputed enhanced compensation which is subject-matter of litigation in appeals before appellate forum can be taxed without attaining finality?' 3. brief facts of case are that assessee's land at Karnal was acquired by Land Acquisition Officer, Panchkula, and compensation was awarded on 16th February, 1989 and assessee received compensation of Rs. 39,03,271 in February, 1989 in two instalments. Thereafter, enhanced compensation was ordered by District Sessions Judge on 6th May, 1993 against which order both assessee as well as Land Acquisition Officer went in appeal before Punjab and Haryana High Court. High Court by their order dated 18th February, 1994 declined to grant stay though directed executing Court to release amount of enhanced compensation to assessee against adequate security. assessee received following payments on different dates from 10th June, 1994 to 28th November, 1995: S. Date of Amount of Asst. Year to which No. payment compensation paid amount pertains 10-6- 1. 3,09,517.61 1995-96 1994 17-9- 2. 4,64,275.10 1995-96 1994 14-12- 3. 7,54,433.61 1995-96 1994 18-1- 4. 7,54,433.61 1995-96 1995 29-4- 5. 16,06,757.35 1996-97 1995 28-11- 6. 10,72,758.00 1996-97 1995 4. Besides assessee was paid interest of following amounts after deducting TDS thereon: Date of payment AMOUNT Tax 12-5-1994 1,28,585-40 14,401-50 28-7-1994 1,92,878-10 21,602-25 27-10-1994 3,10,536-78 34,779-99 9-12-1994 3,10,536-78 34,779-99 25-3-1995 6,83,601-80 75,588-66 6-11-1995 4,41,302-24 49,450-00 5. Though TDS was deducted on various dates, Land Acquisition Officer issued TDS certificate only on 21st November, 1996. assessee filed voluntary returns of income for financial year 1996-97 relevant to assessment year 1997-98 and offered entire income of interest on receipt basis as TDS was deducted in that year. 6. For assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96, Assessing Officer issued notices under section 148 on 11th December, 1996 in response to which assessee declared total income of Rs. 56,026 for assessment year 1994-95 and Rs. 41,000 for assessment year 1995-96 by filing returns on 12th October, 1 9 9 8 repeating income as declared during oringal assessment proceedings. assessee's contention was that it had received enhanced compensation and interest thereon amounting to Rs. 20,67,441 on 21st November, 1996 and, therefore, assessee had shown entire income received on such enhanced compensation on cash/receipt basis in return of income filed for assessment year 1997-98. Assessing Officer observed that assessee had neither received amount of enhanced compensation nor amount of interest on such enhanced compensation during financial year relevant to assessment year 1997-98. entire payments had been received by assessee prior to commencement of financial year 1996- 97 and, therefore, assessee was not justified in declaring any income in respect of assessment year 1997-98. According to Assessing Officer, under section 45(5)(b) irrespective of method of accounting followed by assessee amount of enhanced compensation was assessable only in previous year in which enhanced compensation was received by assessee. assessee received total sum of Rs. 22,82,660 during financial year relevant to assessment year 1995-96 including interest on enhanced compensation amounting to Rs. 9,42,537. Assessing Officer came to conclusion that assessee was liable to capital gains tax in regard to amount of enhanced compensation of Rs. 13,40,123 under provisions of section 45(5)(b) in assessment year 1995-96. Assessing Officer also found that assessee received interest on enhanced compensation aggregating to Rs. 20,67,441 for period 16th February, 1989 to 19th January, 1994. Assessing Officer worked out interest attributable to various assessment years and assessed sum of Rs. 3,68,384 attributable to period 1-4-1993 to 19th January, 1994 and assessed same as assessee's income for assessment year 1994-95. 7. assessee carried matters in appeal. CIT(A) in appeal for assessment year 1994-95 deleted addition of interest by observing that quantum of enhanced compensation receivable was in dispute before higher court; that if compensation was reduced interest would also be reduced and that interest on undisputed amount only can be brought to tax. He, accordingly, directed Assessing Officer to take into account only that portion of interest which related to original compensation granted and not on enhanced compensation which is being disputed and is still not certain. 8. In appeal for assessment year 1995-96, he deleted assessment o f capital gain on enhanced compensation by observing that enhanced compensation has been disputed by authorities before High Court and that decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 524 as also in cases of P. Mariappa Gounder v. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 2 and CIT v. Jeevan & Sons [2000] 1 6 1 CTR (Raj.) 242 were squarely applicable to facts of case. He, therefore, deleted addition made on account of disputed enhanced compensation. compensation. 9. revenue came in appeal in both years before Tribunal and there struck difference of opinion between two Members on two issues aforesaid namely whether enhanced compensation received by assessee was taxable, despite fact that quantum of enhanced compensation was subject-matter of proceedings before appellate forum by State Government as well as assessee and secondly, whether interest received on disputed enhanced compensation is chargeable to tax before final decision of appellate forum. Accountant Member held that enhanced compensation is assessable in hands of assessee by virtue of section 45(5)(b) and interest on enhanced compensation is to be chargeable as worked out on estimated value of enhanced compensation in light of Supreme Court decision in case of Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai v. ACED [1980] 122 ITR 21. Judicial Member, on other hand, held that enhanced compensation could not be brought to tax in years under consideration as dispute on quantum of enhanced compensation has not attained finality. He also held that interest on enhanced compensation would also for very same reason, not liable to tax. 10. ld. CIT-DR Shri Rajneeshkumar supporting order of Accountant Member submitted that matter has been examined in great detail by Tribunal in case of Asstt. CIT v. Trilok Singh [IT Appeal Nos. 708 to 7 1 1 (Delhi) of 2001 dated 18-6-2004]. He distinguished decision of Karnataka High Court in case of Chief CIT v. Smt. Shantavva [2004] 267 ITR 67 by stating that in opinion of Court amount received by assessee was not as enhanced compensation but interim payment pursuant to Court's order. This according to him which is not case in present appeal. Similarly, he submitted that in cases of CIT v. A.B.V. Gowda [1986] 157 ITR 697 (Kar.), CIT v. Abdul Mannan Shah Mohammed [2001] 248 ITR 614 (Bom.) and CIT v. Jeevan & Sons [2000] 161 CTR (Raj.) 242 are cases prior to section 45(5)(b). In Hindustan Housing decision of Supreme Court there was no right to receive compensation and issue was whether compensation can be taxed on mercantile basis and not whether it could be taxed on receipt basis. He then referred to decision of and also decision in case of Jehangir P. Vazifdar v. ITO [1992] 42 ITD 67 (Bom.) and distinguished same by stating that it was not case of receipt of part consideration which was unclouded and unshadowed nature. He further submitted that Delhi Tribunal in case of Smt. Gulab Sundri Bapna v. Dy. CIT [2001] 79 ITD 455 is case of surrender of tenancy rights having no cost of acquisition and that Pune Tribunal in case of Rikhabchand M. Lalwani (HUF) v. Joint CIT [2003] 81 TTJ (Pune) 964 was concerned with case for exercising jurisdiction under section 263 wherein reference to clause (c) to section 45(5) was held cannot be had to, it being later development of law. He then submitted that High Court has not stayed order and, therefore, compensation had accrued to assessee as per decision as it stands to-day. High Court order is in RFA Nos. 2936 to 2977 of 1993 dated 10th February 1994, wherein admitting appeal, High Court observed, 'no case for stay in execution of award in question has been made out. However, compensation amount would be disbursed by executing court only after obtaining adequate security.' He also referred to decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of CIT v. M. Sarojini Devi [2001] 116 TAXMAN 613 which has not been followed by Judicial Member by stating only that it was case prior to section 45(5). He also invited attention to provisions of sub-clause (c) of section 45(5) and submitted that cases referred to above were all before introduction of clause (c) which was with effect from 1-4-2004 added by Finance Act, 2003. Explanatory notes whereof are reported in 263 ITR 62 (St.) Circular No. 7 dated 5-9-2003 at page 88 paragraph 58.2. He then submitted that provisions of clause (c) are not substantive but procedural and clarificatory in nature as it only takes into consideration law as it stood even prior to that. It was in any case enabling provision to reduce rigours of assessee. He then referred to decision of Gujarat High Court in case of CWT v. Niranjan Narottam [1988] 173 ITR 693 observations at page 701 stating that rule of retrospectivity has to apply to procedural amendment. He also referred to decision of Supreme Court in case of Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 for retrospective operation to provisions which supplied meaning to avoid unintended result. He further submitted that if clause (c) of section 45(5) was not there, there was no remedy for assessee for rectification of reduction of compensation and that it was provision to reduce hardships of assessee. He then referred to decision of Tribunal in case of Rikhabchand M. Lalwani (HUF) (supra) wherein reference to clause (c) of section 45(5) was made in passing way. It was case of section 263 order and Tribunal held that issue was debatable. 11. ld. counsel for assessee submitted that provisions of clause (c) of section 45(5) are prospective and so cannot be applicable prior to 1-4-2004. Supporting order of CIT(A), he submitted that neither additional compensation was chargeable nor interest was taxable in year under consideration as matter is still subjudice before High Court. As regards interest, he also referred to decision of Supreme Court in case of P. Mariappa Gounder (supra) besides decision of Supreme Court in case Smt. Rama Bai (supra) wherein it is held that interest accrues from year to year and to be assessed accordingly. 12. parties were heard and record perused. Section 4 of Act is charging section and it provides that income-tax shall be charged for any assessment year in respect of total income of previous year of every person. Section 5 provides for scope of total income and it provides that subject to provisions of this Act total income of any previous year of person who is recipient includes all income from whatever sources derived which- (a) is received or deemed to be received in India in such year by or on behalf of such person; (b) accrued or arises or is deemed to accrue or arising to him in India during such year; or (c) accrues or arises to him outside India during such year. 13. On combined reading of sections 4 and 5 it is apparent that income under Act is chargeable either when it is received or deemed to be received or alternatively when it accrues or arises to him or is deemed to accrue o r arising to him. first is called cash system and second is called mercantile system. These two principles are well-known and have marked and subtle difference under Act. Under cash system record is maintained for actual receipt and actual disbursement, entries being posted when money or money's worth is actually received, collected or disbursed. There is, secondly, mercantile system in which entries are posted in books of account on date of transaction namely, on date on which rights accrued or liabilities are incurred irrespective of date of payment. This has been held by Supreme Court in case of CIT v. A. Krishnaswamy Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 122 at page 129. system of accounting again came up for consideration before Supreme Court in case of Indermani Jatia v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 298 wherein it was observed as follows:- 'It is well-known that mercantile system of accounting differs substantially from cash system of book keeping. Under cash system, it is only actual cash receipts and actual cash payments that are recorded as credits and debits; whereas, under mercantile system, credit entries are made in respect of amounts due immediately they become legally due and before they are actually received; similarly, expenditure items for which legal liability has been incurred are immediately debited even before amounts in question are actually disbursed. Where accounts are kept on mercantile basis, profits or gains are credited though they are not actually realized, and entries thus made really show nothing more than accrual or arising of said profits at material time. same is position with regard to debits made.' 14. There are various provisions which prescribe as to how income of assessee is to be computed under particular Act or for particular receipt o r payment. Choice is also given to assessee under section 145 to adopt either cash system of accounting or mercantile system of accounting for his assessment. We are concerned in this case one of issue with regard to taxability of capital gain. Originally for capital gain charge is provided only on accrual basis under section 45 of Act by stating that any profits or gains arising from transfer of capital asset shall be chargeable to income-tax under head 'Capital gains' and shall be deemed to be income of previous year in which transfer took place. This was irrespective of fact whether assessee has received consideration or not. Finance Act, 1987, however, made change in system of taxation of capital gain on accrual however, made change in system of taxation of capital gain on accrual basis by insertion of sub-section (5) to section 45 with regard to additional compensation received by assessee pursuant to order of court, Tribunal or other authority, by providing that such additional compensation is to be charged under head 'Capital gain' in previous year in which such compensation or part thereof was received by assessee. Therefore, prior to amendment, capital gain tax was chargeable on basis of accrual and there was no option to assessee or to Revenue to make departure therefrom, but from assessment year 1988-89, Finance Act, 1987 made part of consideration received on transfer of capital asset chargeable on receipt basis if it was on account of enhancement of compensation by any court, Tribunal or other authority. Here also choice is not given either to revenue or to assessee to adopt accrual system of accounting. Section 145, however, gives option to assessee to adopt either of systems but that option is only with regard to income chargeable under head 'Profits and gains of business or profession' or 'Income from other sources'. Here in present case, for assessment of interest income assessee had exercised option on accrual basis and Assessing Officer also proceeded on that basis that income from other sources is to be computed as per accrual system of accounting. Therefore, cases referred to before Tribunal are to be considered in light of system of accounting viz., accrual or cash system. Therefore, cases arising under head 'Capital gain' prior to introduction of sub-section (5) of section 45 would be of not much help in determining taxability of enhanced compensation which is made chargeable on receipt basis as against mercantile system of accounting prior to 1-4-1988. On contrary, those cases would be decisive of matter for determining chargeability of interest income for which assessee as well as Revenue have proceeded on basis that it is to be charged on accrual basis. 15. Section 45 provides for charging of capital gain arising on transfer of capital asset. As stated above, it provided charge originally under sub- section (1) of section 45 to be in year of transfer. Cases have arisen where gains of compensation determined at time of acquisition/transfer on compulsory acquisition were carried in litigation and on which determination assessments made for year of transfer required rectification of various stages of determination of additional compensation. To obviate this difficulty, sub-section (5) was added to section 45 by Finance Act, 1987 with effect from 1-4-1988. It read as under:- '(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where capital gain arises from transfer of capital asset, being transfer by way of compulsory acquisition under any law, or transfer consideration for which was determined or approved by Central Government or Reserve Bank of India, and compensation or consideration for such transfer is enhanced or further enhanced by any court, Tribunal or other authority, capital gain shall be dealt with in following manner, namely:- (a) capital gain computed with reference to compensation awarded i n first instance or, as case may be, consideration determined or approved in first instance by Central Government or Reserve Bank of India shall be chargeable as income under head 'Capital gains' of previous year in which such compensation or part thereof, or such consideration or part thereof, was first received; and (b) amount by which compensation or consideration is enhanced further enhanced by court, Tribunal or other authority shall be deemed to be income chargeable under head 'Capital gains' of previous year in which such amount is received by assessee;' 16. Explanatory Notes are appearing in Circular No. 475, dated 22-9-1987 i n paras 24.5, 24.6 and 24.7 which read as under for bringing out this amendment:- '24.5 Under existing provisions where capital gains accrue or arise by way of compulsory acquisition of assets, additional compensation is taken into consideration for determining capital gain for year in which transfer took place. To provide for rectification of assessment of year in which capital gain was originally assessed, section 155(7A) was introduced. additional compensation is awarded in several stages by different appellate authorities and necessitates rectification of original assessment at each stage. This causes great difficulty in carrying out required rectification and in effecting recovery of additional demand. Another difficulty which arises is in cases where original transferor dies and additional compensation is received by his legal heirs. In latter type of cases, proceedings have to be initiated against legal heirs. Repeated rectification of assessments on account of enhancement of compensation by different courts often results in mistakes of computation of tax. 24.6 With view to removing these difficulties, Finance Act, 1987 has inserted new sub-section (5) in section 45 to provide for taxation of additional compensation in year of receipt instead of in year of transfer of capital asset. additional compensation will be deemed to be income in hands of recipient even if actual recipient happens to be person different from original transferor by reason of death, etc. For this purpose, cost of acquisition in hands of receiver of additional compensation will be deemed to be nil. compensation awarded in first instance would continue to be chargeable as income under head 'Capital gains' in previous year in which transfer took place. 24.7 These amendments will come into force with effect from 1st April, 1988, and will, accordingly, apply from assessment year 1988-89 and subsequent years.' 17. provisions so inserted, however, did not encompass full remedy inasmuch as there was no specific provision to provide for rectification of assessment downwards if compensation is reduced except by provisions of section 154. Finance Act, 2003 inserted sub- section (16) in section 155 to provide that where such amount of compensation or consideration is subsequently reduced by any Court, Tribunal or other authority, capital gain of that year in which compensation or consideration received was taxed shall be recomputed accordingly and Assessing Officer shall amend order of assessment to revise computation of said capital gain of that year by taking compensation or consideration so reduced by Tribunal or authority to be full value of consideration. This amendment is made effective from 1st April, 2004. Clause (c) in sub-section (5) as inserted by Finance Act, 2003 reads as under:- '(c) where in assessment for any year, capital gain arising from transfer of capital asset is computed by taking compensation or consideration referred to in clause (a) or, as case may be, enhanced compensation or consideration referred to in clause (b), and subsequently such compensation or consideration is reduced by any court, Tribunal or other authority, such assessed capital gain of that year shall be recomputed by taking compensation or consideration as so reduced by such court, Tribunal or other authority to be full value of consideration.' 18. Sub-section (16) as also inserted by Finance Act, 2003 in section 155 read as under:- '(16) Where in assessment for any year, capital gain arising from transfer of capital asset, being transfer by way of compulsory acquisition under any law, or transfer, consideration for which was determined or approved by Central Government or Reserve Bank of India, is computed b y taking compensation or consideration as referred to in clause (a) or, as t h e case may be, compensation or consideration enhanced or further enhanced as referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (5) of section 45 to be full value of consideration deemed to be received or accruing as result of transfer of asset and subsequently such compensation or consideration is reduced by any court, Tribunal or other authority, Assessing Officer shall amend order of assessment so as to compute capital gain by taking compensation or consideration as so reduced by court, Tribunal or any other authority to be full value of consideration; and provisions of section 154 shall, so far as may be, apply thereto, and period of four years shall be reckoned from end of previous year in which order reducing compensation was passed by court, Tribunal or other authority.' 19. On combined reading of these provisions, it is apparent that whereas sub-section (1) of section 45 deems income arising on transfer of capital asset to be assessed to be charged in year in which transfer has taken place; sub-section (5) provides for charge on receipt of compensation in first instance, as income of year in which said compensation is first received or additional compensation in year in which further enhanced compensation was received. enabling provision was also made that if compensation is subsequently reduced, assessment of additional compensation is to be reduced in year of reduction. In this way there has been shift in process of assessment of compensation from accrual to receipt and, therefore, cases which have been decided on basis that additional compensation or compensation does not accrue to assessee until final decision thereon is taken by court, Tribunal or any authority are of no help. 20. case of Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. (supra) was case of assessment of capital gain on accrual basis under section 45(1) of Act. In this case, Land Acquisition Officer awarded sum of Rs. 24,97,249 as compensation and on appeal preferred by assessee, arbitrator made award on July 29,1955 fixing compensation at Rs. 30,10,873 and directed payment of interest at 5% from date of acquisition. State Government deposited additional amount of Rs. 7,36,691 in court and assessee was permitted to withdraw same on May 9, 1956 only on furnishing of security bond for refunding amount in event of appeal being allowed. said receipt of Rs. 7,24,915 and balance having already been taxed was subject-matter of dispute which according to assessee was not chargeable to tax because it was subject to litigation and according to revenue it was chargeable to tax because it became payable pursuant to arbitrator's award. Supreme Court held that entire amount of enhanced compensation was in dispute in appeal filed by State Government and dispute was recorded by court as real and substantial because respondent was not permitted to withdraw amount by State Government without furnishing bond for refunding amount in event of appeal being allowed. There was thus no absolute right to receive amount at that stage and question before Their Lordships was whether said amount can be said to have accrued to assessee as income during previous year ended on 31st March, 1956. question of assessability on receipt basis was not issue. In present case, on contrary, additional compensation is awarded by Addl. District Judge, Karnal and appeal there-against was, though admitted by High Court but as aforesaid without staying execution of award. In other words, operations of award of Addl. District Judge, Karnal has not been stayed. It was, therefore, right of assessee even otherwise to receive compensation as per said award of Addl. District Judge. 21. Similarly case of CIT v. A.B.V. Gowda [1986] 157 ITR 697 before Karnataka High Court is case prior to insertion of sub-section (5) of section 45 and entire discussion was on provisions of section 5(1)(b) with regard to accrual of income and, therefore, this case is of no help to assessee. Again, decision of Bombay High Court in case of Abdul Mannan Shah Mohammed (supra) is case solely resting on ratio of decision of Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. (supra) and there is no discussion with regard to provisions of section 45(5) of Act. These cases, therefore, for similar reasons are of no help to assessee. 22. Reliance by assessee in case of Smt. Gulab Sundri Bapna (supra) also does not help because in said case compensation received by assessee pertained to compulsory acquisition of property in tenancy right and not ownership right and Tribunal held that compensation in respect of tenancy right is not liable to capital gains tax under section 55(2) since section 55(2)(a) was substituted by Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 1-4-1995 including tenancy right inter alia, within definition of 'capital asset' having cost of compensation as Nil. 23. It may be mentioned that Smt. Gulab Sundri Bapna's case (supra) was rendered on 13th September, 2000 and at that time clause (c) was not there in existence which was inserted by Finance Act, 2003. Though said clause is stated to be applicable from 1-4-2004 and might give impression that it is applicable from 2004-05 and cases prior to that would not be covered by this clause. In my opinion, however, insertion of clause (c) is only enabling provision to reduce rigors of provision upon assessee for downward rectification of assessment in case of reduction of compensation. This is only indication of intention of Legislature that irrespective of finality of litigation compensation is chargeable in year of receipt and if per chance said additional compensation is reduced in further litigation Legislature has provided for relief to be granted to assessee. 24. decision in case of Lala Ram Dagar (supra) which has merely followed aforesaid Division Bench decision in case of Smt. Gulab Sundri Bapna (supra) and, therefore, nothing turns on that also. 25. In case of Jahangir P. Vazifdar v. ITO [1992] 42 ITD 67 (Bom.), half of additional compensation only was received by assessee and that too subject to furnishing of security. According to Revenue not only amount actually received but full amount of compensation was taxable in year when enhanced compensation was awarded, whereas assessee's claim was that entire amount became vested only when final order was passed by High Court. It may be stated that in this case, operation of award was stayed by interim stay of execution of award decree was granted by High Court subject to appellant depositing 50% of decreed amount within six weeks thereof. In this case, therefore, distinguishing feature is that amount was allowed to be withdrawn subject to furnishing of bank guarantee and execution of award was stayed by High Court and only part of amount awarded as compensation was received by assessee. On these facts, Tribunal held that nothing accrued to assessee and receipt of 50% could not be said to be 'unclouded and un-shadowed'. In present case, however, award of Addl. District Judge was not stayed by High Court and amount was received by assessee pursuant to said award of Additional District Judge. 26. In judgment of Karnataka High Court in case of Chief CIT v. Smt. Shantavva [2004] 266 ITR 67 though discussion was with regard to provisions of section 45(5)(b) but matter could not have been examined with reference to later introduction of clause (c) in section 45(5) of Act. Further, in that decision, heavy reliance was placed on decision of Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. (supra) wherein question was only for accrual of income to assessee and not to receipt which as per legislative amendment made chargeable to tax as capital gain on receipt basis. 27. decision of Supreme Court in case of Polyflex (India) (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 257 ITR 343, may also be referred to here. This is case arising under section 41 of IT Act. Here also, section 41(1) provides for two situations for charging amount where allowance or deduction has been made in assessment of assessee for any year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by assessee-(i) where assessee obtained sum; or (ii) he obtains some benefits in respect of trading liability by way of remission or cessation of liability. There were cases where courts have been taking view that there is no remission or cessation or liability if matter is pending in litigation and, therefore, obtaining of amount or benefit in respect of such trading liability was not taxable without making any distinction. Supreme Court considered this distinction and held that whereas in case of obtaining amount in respect of such trading liability sum is chargeable in year of receipt irrespective of fact that litigation for remission thereof is pending; but where amount has not been received court held that there was no remission or cessation of liability so long as matter was pending in litigation and until matter is finally settled. following passage from Supreme Court's order would be demonstrative in this respect:- 'The High Court then held that liability of assessee as regards payment of excise duty cannot be said to have ceased because judgment of single judge of High Court did not attain finality. Though conclusion of High Court which was affirmed by this court cannot be legally faulted, we cannot, however, approve of following analysis of section occurring in judgment (page 881 of (1976) 105 ITR: 'In short, what this provision means is that if assessee has been allowed deduction in computation of its total income of any liability on account of loss or expenditure and if, subsequently, liability of assessee on account of such loss or expenditure is remitted or ceases, that part of liability which is remitted or ceases shall be treated to be income of assessee of previous year in which such remission or cessation takes place'. High Court proceeded on assumption that words 'remission and cessation thereof' could be transposed into first clause which speaks of obtaining any amount in respect of loss or expenditure. High Court could have merely said that trading liability provided for in books of account and for which deduction was allowed earlier did not cease in view of pendency of dispute. Instead, High Court referred to expression 'loss or expenditure' occurring in first limb. As assessee-company did not obtain any amount by way of refund on excise duty account, first clause of section 41(1) will not be applicable; it is only latter part that applies in which case remission or cessation of liability would assume importance. However, in present case, as discussed above, it is first clause that squarely applies but not second one. Whether there was cessation or remission of liability would be irrelevant line of enquiry here. correct way of understanding section 41(1) would be to read latter clause - 'some benefit in respect of such trading liability by way of remission or cessation thereof' as distinct and self-contained provision. To read phrase 'by way of remission or cessation thereof' as governing previous clause as well, i.e., 'obtained any amount in respect of such loss or expenditure', would be doing violence to language and structure of provision. 'That apart, operation of provision which is designed to have widest amplitude will get constricted and truncated by reason of such interpretation.' 28. Though this decision is not directly on issue of taxability on cash system or accrual system, but it demonstrates ambit of concept of chargeability to tax on receipt basis and benefit obtained because of cessation or remission of liability wherein concept of pendency of litigation was considered to be relevant. In present case also, assessee had received additional compensation in year under consideration pursuant to judgment of Addl. District Judge, Karnal and, therefore, it would be chargeable to tax in year of receipt as per provisions of section 45(5) of Act irrespective of fact that additional/enhanced compensation is subject-matter of further litigation. 29. In view of aforesaid, in my opinion, insofar as receipt of additional compensation by assessee is concerned, it has to be charged on receipt basis and Assessing Officer, in my opinion, was justified in charging same and CIT(A) was not right in deleting same by relying upon decision of Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Housing & Land decision of Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. (supra) and by stating that no right has accrued to assessee over said additional compensation ignoring provisions of Act under section 45(5) which has shifted charge of capital gain tax on receipt basis insofar as additional compensation received is concerned. 30. As regards second question, facts are little different. There is no specific provision for making assessment of interest on cash basis. assessee had been given right to adopt system of accounting by section 145. Undisputedly that system adopted by assessee is accrual system of accounting. Since award of Addl. District Judge, Karnal was subject- matter of appeal to High Court, there was no accrual thereof and consequently interest would also not accrue to assessee. In view of decision of Supreme Court in cases of Smt. Rama Bai (supra) and P. Mariappa Gounder (supra). direction sought on basis of decision of Supreme Court in case of Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai (supra) is misplaced. There question was assessability of value of compensation receivable by assessee which was to be charged as value of estate passing on death. Court held that where lands are compulsorily acquired under Land Acquisition Act there are no two rights, one right to receive compensation and other right to receive extra or further compensation. claimant has only one right which is to receive compensation of land on market value on date of relevant Notification and it is this right which is quantified by Collector under section 11 and by Civil Court under section 26 of Act. collector's award under section 11 is nothing more than offer of compensation made by Government to claimant whose property is acquired. If offer is acquiesced by total acceptance of right of compensation will not survive but if offer is not accepted under protest and reference is sought by claimant under section 18 right to receive compensation must be regarded as having survived and kept alive which claimant prosecutes in civil court. It is not correct to say that no sooner had collector made first award under section 11 than right to compensation is destroyed or ceases to exist or is merged in award or what is left after award with claimant is mere right to litigate correctness of award. T h e claimant can litigate correctness of award because his right to compensation is not fully redeemed but remains alive, which he prosecutes in civil court. This, however, does not mean that evaluation of this right done by civil court subsequently would be its valuation as age relevant date for purpose of either E.D. Act or IT Act. It is duty of assessing authority under either of those enactments to evaluate property (the right to receive compensation at market value on date of relevant notification) as on relevant date (i.e., date of death under E.D. Act or valuation date under W.T. Act. No such situation is appearing in this case for estimating right of compensation and, therefore, reliance on decision of Supreme Court in case of Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai (supra) is misplaced and is of no help to Revenue. In my opinion, therefore, interest though would be chargeable on year to year basis but only when right disputed by parties is finally settled by court, Tribunal or any authority and since in this case matter is pending in High Court in relevant year no right to receive compensation or to interest accrued to assessee and consequently, no assessment can be made in year under consideration until matter is finally settled by court. *** DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. BHIM SINGH LATHER