IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
   ITA 541/2012  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CIT        ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD.    ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through None 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
      24.09.2012 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 Revenue claims to be aggrieved by the order of the ITAT dated 15th 
 July, 2011 in I.T.A. NO. 2149/Del/2009.  The question of law it urges is 
 whether the Tribunal fell into error in holding that the sum of Rs. 
 6,64,71,000/-, was not liable to be brought to tax during the assessment 
 year 2005-2006, on account of accrued interest. 
 . 
 The facts necessary for the purpose of this appeal are that the 
 assessee filed its return on 31st October, 2005; it was selected for 
 scrutiny.  The appeal is inter alia directed against the inclusion of the 
 interest of Rs. 6,64,71,000/- alleged to have accrued during the year 
 under consideration, holding that the sum had accrued on account of an 
 award made in the assessee?s favour.  The CIT (Appeals) accepted the 
 assessee?s contention holding that nothing has been crystallized in 
 favour of the assessee and that such entitlement arose for the first time 
 after the award was made the rule of court on 4th December, 2006. 
 . 
 The Tribunal endorsed the finding of the CIT (Appeals).  It relied 
 upon its decision for the assessment year 2004-2005, as is apparent from 
 its discussion in para 9.  The Tribunal?s finding would show that it had 
 also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Fuerst Day Lawson 
 ltd. Vs. Jindal Exports Ltd., (AIR 2001 SC 2293). 
 . 
 This Court also noticed that having regard to the terms of the 
 repealed Arbitration Act, 1940, an award could not be enforceable.  The 
 same was the case with the foreign award; the Court had to first 
 adjudicate as to the enforceability. 
 . 
 In these circumstances, the assessee?s right to interest was a mere 
 . 
 claim, till the date of the judgment of the Court dated 4th December, 2006.  In other words, the right to interest crystallized after the 
 judgment of the Court.  Till then, it was inchoate.  For this reason, the 
 Tribunal?s finding cannot be faulted with.  No substantial question of 
 law arises.  The appeal is therefore dismissed. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V.EASWAR, J 
 . 
 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012 
 . 
 p 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 $ 18 
 .