Jeevan Reddy, J. - (1.) There questions are referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderbad, for our opinion, viz. : "1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Appellate Tribunal justified in stating that the interest paid under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act was not additional compensation representing capital receipt estimated and measured in terms of interest as decided by the Madras High Court in A. S. Krishnamurthi v. Revenue divisional officer report din (1970) 2 MLJ 692; AIr 1971 Mad 236, but revenue receipt? 2. Whether, in the fact and circumstances of the case, was the Appellate Tribunal right in law in holding that the entire interest amount of Rs. 73,295 was assessable in the assessment year 1967-68 and not that only proportionate interest referable to the assessment year 1967-68 was only assessable in that year ? 3. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Appellate Tribunal justified in holding that the entire amount of Rs. 73,295 is assessable in 1967=68, even though the Income-tax officer himself has chosen to asses similar interest on accrual basis in the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71?"
(2.) The lands of the assessee wear acquired by the Government Certain compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, but on a reference to the civil court, the compensation was enhanced. As a result of the enhancement of compensation, the assessee became entitled to enhanced interest as well. He received a sum of Rs. 75,972 in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1967-68, relatable to the period 1/01/1953, to 21/04/1966. The assessee do not show this entire interest as having been received in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1967-68. He showed only that portion of interest as is relatable to the said accounting year, having divided the total interest among the several accounting years falling within the period 1/01/1953, to 21/04/1966. The assessee did not show this entire interest as having been received in the accounting year relevant as is relatable to the said accounting year, having divided the total interest among the several accounting years falling within the period 1/01/1953, to 21/04/1966. This was accepted by the ITO. The Commissioner, however, in exercise of his revisional power, set abide the assessment and directed the ITO to pass fresh order, after including the entire amount in the income of the relevant assessment year. The assessee went up in appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against the decision of the Commissioner. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal following the judgment of this court in CIT v. Smt. Sankari Manickyamma (1976) 105 refer the aforesaid three question for the opinion of this court, which was accordingly done.
(3.) So for as the first question is concerned, there can be little doubt today regarding the proposition that interest received is a revenue receipt and not a capital receipt. Indeed, the learned counsel for the assessee did not seriously contend to the contrary on this question.;