- (1.) PURSUANT to the direction of the High Court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's decision is vitiated in law in ignoring the material on record and upholding the share of compensation at Rs. 91,466 only even though the assessee had claimed the whole of the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,44,665 awarded ?"
(2.) THE undisputed facts are that land belonging to the assessee was acquired and an award was made by the Land Acquisition Officer determining the compensation of Rs. 91,466 paid to the assessee. THE assessee, however, claimed compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,44,665. THE difference of Rs. 1,44,665 and Rs. 91,466 was paid to the tenants, who remained in occupation of the land for a long time. THE fact remains that under the award, the assessee became entitled only to receive compensation to the extent of Rs. 91,466. THE Appellate Tribunal held that as the assessee became entitled to compensation only to the extent of Rs. 91,466, that alone can be computed in the wealth of the assessee. Relying on the case of Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai v. Asst. CED [1980] 122 ITR 21 (SC), learned standing counsel submits that the Appellate Tribunal was wrong in confirming the inclusion of Rs. 91,466 only as the wealth of the assessee. On page 32 of this authority, the Supreme Court observed as under : "In the case of the right to receive compensation, which is property, where the Collector's award has been made but has not been accepted or has been accepted under protest and a reference is sought or is pending in a civil court at the date of the deceased's death, the estimated value can never he below the figure quantified by the Collector because under Section 25(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the civil court cannot award any amount below that awarded by the Collector, the estimated value can be equal to the Collector's award or more but can never be equal to the tall claim made by the claimant in the reference nor equal to the claim actually awarded by the civil court. . . . (underlining ours). This authority is of no help to the Revenue. The Supreme Court clearly laid down that the estimated value can be equal to the Collector's award or more but can never be equal to the tall claim made by the claimant in the reference. In the case on hand, the claim of the assessee may be of Rs. 1,44,665 or anything more but what is relevant is how much amount was awarded as compensation under the award by the land acquisition authority. In this case a compensation of Rs. 91,466 only has been awarded to the assessee and, therefore, the Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the inclusion of that amount in the assessor's wealth.
(3.) THE question, therefore, is answered in the negative. The record of the case be sent down to the Appellate Tribunal within fifteen days to enable it to pass an order conformably to our order.;