11. Besides, the judgment and decree of the learned single judge was challenged in appeal and the appeal was dismissed in the year 1965 only. Thus, even a mere right to sue for damages for breach of contract could not be said to have accrued to the assessee until then. The dismissal of the appeal does not certainly improve the mere right to sue qualitatively. At best, the position that the Commissioner was to take accounts for determining the amount of compensation payable by way of damages for the breach of contract, if any, revived thereby. This only meant that the Commissioner would then go into all the relevant questions and recommend damages if he is satisfied that the assessee is entitled to the damages. It is true that, in the year 1968, the Commissioner submitted his report whereby he recommended damages to the extent of Rs. 10,92,000. However, as stated earlier, both the parties filed their objections to the report and but for the compromise reached between the parties, there would have been prolonged litigation between the parties and it is difficult to say with any amount of certainty as to what would have been the fate of the litigation. In our judgment, the only reasonable conclusion is that the right to receive damages in this case accrued to the assessee on the date of the consent decree only. Since, as already stated by us, the right under the agreement came to an end in the year 1961, if
