Judgment 1. In this case the assesses is a Hindu undivided family which carries on business in cloth and oil milling at Gaya and also owns house properties. The assessee also owned certain land at Gaya which was requisitioned by the Government of India for its use and occupation. The assessment in this case relates to the year 1947-48 and in the corresponding accounting year the assessee received a sum of Rs. 8,272 from the Central Public Works Department as compensation for the use and occupation of the land. . The assessee did not include this amount in his return for the assessment year 1947-48. The Income-tax Officer required the assessee to produce correspondence relating to the payment of the amount. The assessee did not produce the correspondence nor did he furnish any material to show what was the nature of the payment and what was the period to which it related. The Income-tax Officer thereupon decided that the sum of Rs. 8,272 was rent received by the assessee in a lump sum and was liable to be taxed. An appeal was taken by the assessee to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the decision of the Income-tax Officer. It was argued before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the amount was agricultural income and was not liable to be taxed. This argument was rejected by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the appeal was dismissed. The assessee preferred a further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and his contention was that the amount of Rs. 8,272 was a capital receipt and was not liable to be taxed. This argument was rejected by the Tribunal on the finding that the amount of Rs. 8,272 represented payment of rent in a lump sum. 2. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has submitted the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 8,272 received by the assessee family from the Aviation Division ot the Central Public Works Department, was income from other sources liable to inclusion in its total income or was a capital liable to be excluded from the assessment?" 3. On behalf of the assessee Mr. Tarkeshwar Prasad put forward the argument that the amount of Rs. 8,272 received by the assessee family from the Aviation Division ot the Central Public Works Department, was income from other sources liable to inclusion in its total income or was a capital liable to be excluded from the assessment?" 3. On behalf of the assessee Mr. Tarkeshwar Prasad put forward the argument that the amount of Rs. 8,272 received by the assessee was in the nature of a capital receipt and ought not to have been taxed by the Income-tax Department. The argument of the learned counsel was that the Central Public Works Department occupied the land for a number of years and had prevented the assessee from utilising the land in whatever way he liked. It was argued that the amount of Rs. 8,272 was compensation paid for the realisation of capital asset and was not liable to be taxed as income in the assessees hands. We are unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel as correct. It should be noticed in the first place, that the assessee did not produce any material before the income-tux authorities to show what was the nature oi the payment made by the Central Public Works Department and what was the period to which it related. The assessee did not also furnish any material before the Income-tax authorities to indicate if there was any agreement between the parties as regards thy rent of the land and for what purpose the assessee had used the land before the Central Public Works Department had made the requisition. In the second place, the facts narrated in the statement of the case do not suggest that there was. sterilisation or immobilisation of any capital asset. It is true that the Central Public Works Department was in possession of the land for a period of years and it is also true that the assessee was prevented during that period from using the land in whatever way he liked. In other words, the assessee was prevented for the period in question from enjoying the usufruct of the Sand. The facts suggest that the assessee was prevented or restricted from earning income from the land for the period in question. That is a different thing, from saying that there was sterilisation or immobilisation of the capital asset. There is in the present case no damage inflicted on the capital asset. The facts suggest that the assessee was prevented or restricted from earning income from the land for the period in question. That is a different thing, from saying that there was sterilisation or immobilisation of the capital asset. There is in the present case no damage inflicted on the capital asset. It is not alleged that the assessee was permanently deprived ot the use of the land. It cannot be therefore said that the capital asset was sterilised or immobilised. The distinction is clearly pointed out by Lord President Clyde in -- Burmah Steam Ship Co. V/s. Comrars. of Inland Revenue, (1931) 16 Tax Cas 67 at p. 72 (A). In our opinion, therefore, the amount of Rs. 8,272 represents merely the loss of income suffered by the assessee for the period during which the Government was in occupation of the land and was rightly treated by the Income-tax authorities as an income receipt liable to be taxed in the assessees hands. 4. A similar view has been taken by a Bench of this Court in -- H.P. Bannerji v. Commr. of Income-tax, AIR 1951 Pat 565 (B). The material tacts of that case are closely similar to the facts of the present case and it was held by the Division Bench in that case that the amount of compensation received by the assessee from the military authorities was really a profit derived from the land and was therefore taxable. 5. In support of his argument Mr. Tarkeshwar Prasad referred to two authorities Glenboig Union Fireclay Co. Ltd. V/s. Commrs. of Inland Revenue, (1921) 12 Tax Cas 427 (C) and -- Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal V/s. Shaw Wallace & Co., AIR 1932 PC 138 (D). But we donot think that the ratio of these authorities support the argument of the assessee. In the first case, the assessee carried on business as manufacturers of fireclay good and was lessee of - certain fireclay fields over part of which there was Caledonian. Railway. In 1908 the Railway Company, to whom the lands belonged, instituted an action to restrain the assessee from working the fireclay under the railway. Pending the settlement of the action the assessee was prohibited from working under the railway lines. Railway. In 1908 the Railway Company, to whom the lands belonged, instituted an action to restrain the assessee from working the fireclay under the railway. Pending the settlement of the action the assessee was prohibited from working under the railway lines. In 1911 the House of Lords decided against the Railway Company, which thereupon in exercise of its statutory power required the assessee to leave unworked the fireclay on payment of compensation. The amount of compensation was settled by arbitration and the Railway Company paid compensation to the assessee in 1913. It was held by the House of Lords that the amount received for compensation in respect ot the fireclay left unworked was not a profit earned in the course of the companys trade, but was a capital received, being a payment made for the sterilisation of a capital asset. This must clearly be distinguished for the assessee was permanently deprived of the fireclay leaseholds. In other words, the taxpayer was deprived from the capital asset of his trading enterprise. That is why the House of Lords held that the compensation paid to the assessee was in respect of capital asset and was not liable to be taxed as income in the assessees hands. In the present case, the assessee is not permanently deprived of the land which was requisitioned by the Central Public Works Department. It is not alleged that there was any damage caused to the land, but the Central Public Works Department returned the land to the assessee after the period of requisition was terminated in the same condition as it was before. It is clear therefore that there was no permanent deprivation of the capital asset but the assessee was merely prohibited from enjoying the land for a period of years because the Government had requisitioned it under the Defence of India Rules. The ratio of (1921) 12 Tax Cas 427 (C) has therefore no application to the present case. The other case upon which Mr. Tarkeshwar Prasad placed much reliance is AIR 1932 PC 138 (D). The question at issue in that case was whether a certain amount received from a principal by an agent as full compensation for cessation of the agency was assessable to income-tax. The other case upon which Mr. Tarkeshwar Prasad placed much reliance is AIR 1932 PC 138 (D). The question at issue in that case was whether a certain amount received from a principal by an agent as full compensation for cessation of the agency was assessable to income-tax. It was held by the Privy Council that the amount received by the agent was tantamount to compensation for the loss of office, that it was some sort of solatium for the compulsory winding up of an agency, and therefore was not assessable to income-tax. The basis of the decision of the Privy Council was that Sec.10 read with Sec. 6(4), Income-tax Act contemplated that there should be continuous exercise of some activity carried on by the assessee. In the view of their Lordships that was the central idea behind these statutory provisions and therefore the amount which the assessee received could only be taxed if it was the produce or the result of carrying on the agencies of the oil companies. But since it was admitted that the amount was received by the assessee not for carrying on the business but for its compulsory stoppage, the Privy Council reached the conclusion that the amount was not taxable in the assessees hands. It is clear that the ratio of this case has no bearing on the question we are investigating in the present case. 6. For the reasons expressed we hold that in the circumstances of the case the amount of Rs. 8,272 received by the assessee from the Central public Works Department is taxable in the hands of the assessee as income from other sources. The question referred to the High Court must accordingly be answered in favour of the Income-tax Department and against the assessee. The assessee must pay the cost of the reference. Hearing fee Rs. 250/-.