1. DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.- This judgment shall also decide FAOs 176 and 177 of 2000 because not only the parties are the same but also for the reason that common question of law is involved in all the 3 appeals.
2. Impugned in these appeals is the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar Bench, Peshawar, dated 9.2.1999 whereby while dismissing appeal of respondent herein, the orders of the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), Peshawar were maintained.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
4. Under the law an appeal to this Court against the judgment of Appellate Tribunal Income Tax lie only on a pure question of law.
5. In the present appeals the learned counsel for the Income Tax Department was unable to convince us that the learned Appellate Tribunal (Income Tax) has taken a contrary view to the law on the subject.
6. The learned Tribunal (Income Tax) has taken the view that the disposal of the plots by the assessed was not on the basis of sale but was on lease basis therefore, the lease period which is spread over several years, the income thus derived there from cannot be confined to one or two assessm ent years and legally cannot be taxed in the manner as has been done by the Assessing Officer.
7. In the case of K.S, Krishna Rao v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Andra Pardesh,(1991 PTD 286) the Supreme Court of India has held a similar view which is reproduced below:- "Interest on enhanced compensation ordered by Court accrues from year to year on time basis fr6m date of delivery of possession and cannot be taxed in one lump sum on the date on which Court orders enhanced compensation."
8. Confronted with the above l; va1 position, the learned counsel for the appellant was can d to concede on such plea taken by him in all the 3 appeals and stated at the bar that it was the only law point involved there and herein and that he has no other point of law to put across.
9. In view of the above discussion and in view of the law on the subject, we are firm in our view that the impugned orders/judgments of the learned Appellate Tribunal suffer from no legal infirmity or jurisdictional defect nor the same are in disregard of law, therefore, all the 3 appeals being devoid of legal merits are dismissed with no order as to costs.