JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, CJ.
Heard.
2. At the instance of the assessed, the following questions have been referred for opinion of this court by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench D under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) :
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the compensation amount of Rs. 11,96,351 received by the assessed for the acquisition of its agricultural lands by the government, was assessable to tax as the profits of the assessed’s business ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the compensation of Rs. 11,96,351 was its agricultural income and as such exempt from income-tax ?
3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the character of the assessed’s agricultural lands changed from stock-in-trade and the same stood sterilized and was converted into a capital asset as a result of the issue of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ?
4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, income from one-half of the property situate at 16, Aurangzeb Road, has rightly been held to be assessable under the head ‘Property’?
5. If the answer to question No. 4 is in the negative, whether the claim for repairs and depreciation has been rightly restricted to one-half of the claim ?
6. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the profit of Rs. 1,03,495 realised from the sale of agricultural lands is assessable to tax as the profit of the assessed’s business ?’
3. The dispute relates to assessment year 1972-73. This court had occasion to deal with a similar issue in the assessed’s own case in D.L.F. United Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 161 ITR 714. The first five questions in the present case are identical to the questions which were under consideration in the aforesaid case except the figures. The answers given in respect of five questions in the reported case are equally applicable to the present case. So far as the sixth question is concerned, it is closely linked with the third question and in view of answer given to the third question, the sixth question is really of academic interest and, therefore, need not be answered.
The reference stands disposed of accordingly.