TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (8) TMI 119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing of the appeals. At the time of hearing of the appeal none put in appearance on behalf of the assessee. The appeals were, therefore, heard expert and have to be disposed of on the basis of submissions made on behalf of the Revenue and the materials available on record. 3. The assessee is an individual. The assessment years involved are 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. Shri B. B. Kundu, ld. Departmental Representative, stated before us that the assessee carries on business as a contractor and that he constructed two bridges for the Govt. of Assam. The assessee filed two separate suits for recovery of compensation, being suit No. 33 of 1963 and No. 21 of 1966 in the Court of Sub-judge, Silchar. It further ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the sum of Rs. 1,07,148 and therefore, brought to wealth tax the balance interest amount of Rs. 97,148. 5. For the asst. yr. 1974-75, the WTO took the view that the interest amount was not includible in the net wealth of the assessee. 6. The matter was carried in appeal before the AAC was of the view that the question of ownership over the pendentelite interest it subjudice and that the assessee was not the rightful owner of the pendentelite interest. He, therefore, deleted the additions made by the WTO for the asst. yrs. 1968-69 to 1973-74 on account of pendentelite interest. Aggrieved, the Revenue has come up in appeal for all these assessment years. 7. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the appeal filed by the Revenue for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contentions raised on behalf of the Revenue and have gone through the record of the case. As has been stated before us on behalf of the Revenue, the assessee filed two separate suits in the Court of Sub-judge, Silchar, for recovery of compensation. We fell handicapped by the fact that the copies of the plaints of those suits and also the copies of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in each suit have not been made available to us. On the basis of what has been submitted before us on behalf of the Revenue, we can safely conclude that the assessee's right to recover compensation or damages by way of interest for breach of a contract is a mere right to sue and is not an actionable claim and is, therefore, not transferable in view....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....money in a Civil Court cannot, as of right claim pendentelite interest does not amount to a debt before the Court passes a decree awarding pendentelite interest. Before passing of the decree no claim subsists in favour of the person bringing a suit for recovery of money, regarding pendentelite interest. The right to receive pendentelite interest accrues or arises for the first time when the Court awards pendentelite interest under s. 34. Before passing of the decree, such a person can have no interest in or claim over pendentelite interest. His right to receive pendentelite interest arises only under the decree and such right is extinguished as soon as the decree awarding the pendentelite interest is set aside by a higher Court. So a right ....