.....held during the previous year did not accrue to the assessee in the current assessment year and, therefore, could not be treated as its income.
income tax act, 1961 s.5
in the allahabad high court m. katju & u. pandey, jj.
- land acquisition act, 1894 [c.a. no. 1/1894]. section 4; [sushil harkauli, s.k. singh & krishna murari, jj] acquisition of land held, court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the state authorities to acquire a particular land. land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive no direction in nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by court under article 226 necessarily to acquire particular land in public interest. land acquisition is not a purely ministerial act to be performed by the executive and therefore, no mandamus can be issued by the court in exercise of its power under article 226 of the constitution, whether suo motu or otherwise, whether in public interest litigation or otherwise directing acquisition of land under the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public.....1. in this case sri r.k. gulati appeared for the assessee who was elevated to the bench. notice was issued on 7-1-2003 to the assessee to engage another counsel, but none has appeared and the notice has not returned after delivery. hence we treat service as sufficient under the explanation (ii) to chapter 8 rule 12 of the high court rules.2. this is a reference under section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961 in which the following question has been referred to us for our opinion.1. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of rs. 30,925 on account of the difference between the enhanced and old prices of fertilizer in respect of the stocks as on 31-5-1974 during the previous year did not accrue to the assessee in this year and, therefore, could not be treated as its income for the assessment year 1976-77 ?the facts are covered by the division bench decision of this court in cit v. govind prasad prabhu nath : [1988]171itr417(all) .3. following the aforesaid decision the question referred is answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department.