Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. - (1.) This appeal under Sec. 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is directed against an order dated November, 18, 2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") for the Assessment Year 1996 -97, the relevant previous year being the financial year 1995 -96.
(2.) The substantial questions of law on which the appeal has been admitted are: (a) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 1 Crore withdrawn by the Appellant out of the deposit made by the Delhi Administration pursuant to the interim order of the Court as a condition for grant of stay during the pendency of the appeal of the Delhi Administration for upholding the acquisition of the Appellant's property was eligible to tax and its purported findings in that behalf are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse? (b) Whether the purported findings of the Tribunal that: (i) the said amount was quantified and offered by the Delhi Administration as compensation for use of the Appellant's property and there was no appeal against the same; (ii) the Appellant had the absolute right to receive amount and the same accrued as income; (iii) there was no chance of the property being acquired by the Delhi Administration or of the amount withdrawn by the Appellant being adjusted against the cost of the land; and upholding the inclusion of the same as income in the assessment for the Assessment Year 1996 -97 are arbitrary, unreasonable and 'perverse?
(3.) The brief facts are as follows: The Appellant is the joint owner of a House property situated at No. 3, Tilak Marg, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the said property") and having an undivided one -fourth share. Delhi Administration occupied the said property since 1972 under an Order of requisition made under the provisions of Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "1952 Act"). The 1952 Act lapsed on March 10, 1987. By a notification dated March 6, 1987 under Ss. 4 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1894 Act") was issued for acquisition of the said property under Sec. 6 of the said 1894 Act, a declaration was made on March 10, 1987. The Appellant challenged the said acquisition proceedings before the Delhi High Court and on May 27, 1994, the said acquisition proceedings was quashed and it was held by the Hon'ble Court that the Appellant was entitled to damages, quantum whereof was to be decided by Justice Ms. Leila Seth, who was appointed learned Arbitrator by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The appeal was preferred from the said order before the Hon'ble Division Bench. The Delhi Administration before the Hon'ble Division Bench expressed their willingness to deposit 80 percent of the compensation for the acquisition of the said property that may become payable under Sec. 17(3) and Sec. 17(3A) of the 1894 Act, which was about Rs. 4 crores. The Hon'ble Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court stayed the order so passed by the Hon'ble First Court on condition that the Delhi Administration should deposit the said sum of Rs. 4 crores and the Hon'ble Division Bench also permitted the owner of the said property to withdraw the said sum towards the damages that may be payable as per the award so to be made by the Learned Arbitrator. During the Financial year 1995 -96, the Appellant withdrew his share of Rs. 1 Crore. On March 22, 2002, the appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court. Against the said order and the judgment Special Leave Petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on January 2, 2003 by Delhi Administration and on April 28, 2004, the appeal filed by the Delhi Administration against the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The award has not yet been published by the learned Arbitrator.;