Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad V. Dy. Commissioner of income Tax, Circle-14(2),TDS, Hyderabad

ITA 142/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77952 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P SOMASEKHAR REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Capital asset; Bonafide belief; Non-deduction of tax
• Section: 201(1); 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.140, 142 & 141/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HYDERABAD PAN HYDM-00396E VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 14(2) (TDS), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE MR. S. RAMA RAO FOR REVENUE MR. P. SOMASEKHAR REDDY DATE OF HEARING 10.04.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18.06.2014 ORDER PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. THESE THREE APPEALS ARE BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA DATED 02.12.2013 H AVING CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER HYDERABAD, CONFIRMING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 RAISING VARIOUS DEMANDS ON ACC OUNT OF ALLEGED NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTIO N 194LA OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ON THE STRUCTURAL COMPONENT OF L AND COMPENSATION PAID. SINCE, COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVE D IN ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND GROUNDS RAISED BY TH E ASSESSEE BEING COMMON, WE HAVE HEARD THESE THREE AP PEALS TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2 ITA.NO.140, 141 & 142/HYD/2014 GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HYDERABAD 2. WE HAVE HEARD LD. COUNSEL AND LEARNED D. R. IN DETAIL AND PERUSED THE PAPER BOOK PLACED ON RECORD BY ASS ESSEE. FOR THE SAKE OF CONSIDERATION, THE FACTS AND ISSUES IN A.Y. 2008-09 ARE CONSIDERED IN DETAIL. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER : 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 194LA ARE APPLICATION TO THE COMPENSATIO N PAID BY THE GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR DEMOLITION OF THE STRUCTURES ON THE LANDS ACQUI RED BY IT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTIO N OF THE A.O. IN CHARGING THE TAX U/S. 201(1) OF RS.6,50,73, 301/- IN RESPECT OF THE COMPENSATION PAID FOR DEMOLITION OF THE STRUCTURES. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN T HAT THE TDS UNDER SECTION 194LA IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE M ADE FROM THE COMPENSATION FOR DEMOLITION OF THE BUILDIN G. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE CHARG ING OF INTEREST OF RS.2,68,19,138/- UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE GREATER HYDER ABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (IN SHORT GHMC) WAS ORIGINA LLY CONSTITUTED AS A DEPARTMENT IN THE YEAR 1869 BY THE NIZAM NAWAB. IT HAS UNDERGONE LOT OF CHANGES DURING THE L AST CENTURY OR SO. APRIL, 2007 ONWARDS, THE SAID BODY BECAME GR EATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BASED ON NOTIFICATI ON RELEASED ON 16 TH APRIL, 2007 BY GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND THE CITY IS DIVIDED INTO 5 ZONES AND 18 CIRCLES . GHMC IS AN URBAN BODY/LOCAL BODY AND FUNCTIONS TO IMPROVE THE CIVIC FACILITIES IN THE CITY OF HYDERABAD. A.O. CONDUCTE D INSPECTION DURING THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2010 IN ORDER TO VERI FY THE ADHERENCE TO TDS PROVISIONS. A.O. NOTICED THAT ASS ESSEE IS DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE ON THE LAND VALUE OF THE CO MPENSATION PAID TO VARIOUS PERSONS WHILE ACQUIRING THE LAND AN D WAS NOT 3 ITA.NO.140, 141 & 142/HYD/2014 GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HYDERABAD DEDUCTING TAX ON THE COMPONENT OF STRUCTURE VALUE O F THE COMPENSATION THOUGH THE ENTIRE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE SAME PARTY/LAND OWNER. AO NOTED THAT DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE PAID COMPENSATION FOR STRUCT URES AMOUNTING TO RS.57,99,75,942/- AND ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCLUDED THIS AMOUNT WHILE DEDUCTING TAX. 3. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS ON THE VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE PORTION PAID TO THE LAND OWNER. ASSESSEE, THROUGH THE FINAN CIAL ADVISOR VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 24.03.2011 INFORMED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED THE TDS ON THE STRUCTURAL VALUES AS PER THE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-IV, HYDERABAD PASSED FOR A .Y. 2000- 2001 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. ASSESSEE INFORMED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194LA ARE NOT APPLICABLE AS T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT COMPULSORILY ACQUIRING THE LAND. A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194LA, ASSESSEE I S LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX FOR ACQUISITION OF LANDS OR FOR ACQUISIT ION OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY INCLUDING STRUCTURES WHERE PAYME NT EXCEEDS RS. 1 LAKH AND ABOVE. A.O., HOWEVER, NOTED THAT IN A.Y. 2000-01 ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A STAND THAT LAND O WNERS VOLUNTARILY GAVE THE LAND TO MCH FOR NO CONSIDERATI ON AND THE AMOUNT PAID WAS ACTUALLY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BO UNDARY WALL. HOWEVER, IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSE SSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE LAND OW NERS HAVE GIVEN LAND FREE OF COST TO MCH AND THEREFORE, ASSES SEE IS LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TDS ON THE COMPENSATION PAID NOT O NLY IN RESPECT OF LAND BUT ALSO STRUCTURES ACQUIRED BY IT. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.57.99 CRORES , A.O. CALCULATED THE TAX DEDUCTIBLE @ 11.22% AT RS.6,50,7 3,301/- AND INTEREST CHARGEABLE THEREON AT RS.2,68,19,138/- . 4 ITA.NO.140, 141 & 142/HYD/2014 GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HYDERABAD 4. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ) THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194LA CAN BE INVOKED ONLY IN A CASE WHERE THE COMPENSATION WAS PAID ON ACCOUNT OF COMPU LSORY ACQUISITION UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FOR CE OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. IN ASSESSEES CASE, IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT THERE IS ACQUISITION BUT IT IS NOT COMPULSORY. THE ACQUISITION HAS TAKEN PLACE THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS AND AGREEMENT VOLUNTARILY ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND O WNER OF THE PROPERTY. SINCE THE COMPENSATION HAS BEEN PAID FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, THE SAME CANN OT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN PAID ON ACCOUNT OF ACQUISITION OF IMMOVAB LE PROPERTY. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE D OES NOT ACQUIRE ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND THE LAND OWNERS VOLUNTARILY SURRENDER THE LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF P UBLIC ROAD/PUBLIC FACILITY. THEREFORE, THE DEMOLITION OF THE STRUCTURES ON THE AREA REQUISITIONED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE CANNOT BE STATED TO BE ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO EVIDENC E TO SHOW THAT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND ACTUALLY PASSED ON T O THE GHMC, EVEN THOUGH THE RIGHT TO USE THE SAME FOR PUB LIC PURPOSE WAS VESTED WITH THE GHMC. 5. LD. CIT(A) DID NOT AGREE AND REJECTED THE ASSES SEES CONTENTIONS BY STATING AS UNDER : 5.2. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS UNDER SECTION 194LA ON THE COMPENSATION PAID FOR DEMOLITI ON OF BUILDINGS, I AM NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE APPELLANT S SUBMISSIONS DUE TO THE REASON THAT THE APPELLANT PA ID COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF LAND AND STRUCTURES ACQU IRED. BUT APPELLANT DEDUCTED TDS ONLY ON COMPENSATION PAI D ON LAND BUT NOT ON COMPENSATION PAID ON STRUCTURES WIT H A PLEA THAT THERE IS NO COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF STR UCTURES AND ON THE COMPENSATION PAID FOR DEMOLITION OF STRU CTURES, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194LA ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THERE IS NO STRENGTH IN THIS ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT BECAU SE THE 5 ITA.NO.140, 141 & 142/HYD/2014 GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HYDERABAD APPELLANT ACQUIRED THE LAND AFTER DEMOLISHING THE STRUCTURES AND PAID COMPENSATION ON DEMOLITION OF T HOSE STRUCTURES. THE INTENTION OF THE APPELLANT TO DEMOL ISH STRUCTURES IS TO ACQUIRE LAND. THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT THERE IS NO COMPULSORY ACQUISITION BECAUSE THE AGREEMENT WAS VOLUNTARILY ENTERED BY THE OWNERS IS ALSO NOT HAVING STRENGTH BECAUSE THE OWNERS AGREED AND G IVEN CONSENT AND ACCEPTED VOLUNTARILY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE AWARD AND NOT TO HAVE DISPUTES WHILE RECEIVING COMPENSATION. THEREFORE, IT IS COMPULSORY ACQUISITI ON ONLY. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS ACQUIRED LAND AFTER DEMOLIT ION OF STRUCTURES AND PAID COMPENSATION WHICH IS IN THE NA TURE OF COMPENSATION AS PER SECTION 194LA OF THE ACT. HENCE , THE ACTION OF THE A.O. THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 94LA ARE APPLICABLE ON THE COMPENSATION PAID FOR DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES ALSO IS HEREBY UPHELD. THEREBY, THE APPE LLANTS GROUND OF APPEAL IN THIS REGARD IS DISMISSED. 6. LD. COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS N OT CORRECT IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER AS THE LD. CIT(A) H AS NOT APPRECIATED THE ISSUE IN CORRECT PERSPECTIVE. IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN A.Y. 2000-01 UNDER THE ERSTWHILE PROVISIONS OF 194L AND LD. CIT(A)-V, HYDERABAD VIDE ORDER DATED 5 TH DECEMBER, 2001 HELD THAT LAND WAS NOT ACQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT BUT UN DER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 146 AND 147 OF HMC ACT, 1956 AND THEREFORE, THIS WAS NOT COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 194L OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. IN FURTHER SUPPORT, LD. COUNSEL ALSO PLACED ON RECORD COPIES OF THE DRAFT AWARD PROCEEDI NGS FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AND PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION , IN PAPER BOOK FROM PAGES 1 TO 60 AND ALSO EXTRACTS OF PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 145, 146 AND 147 AND SECTION 380 AND 381 OF GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, AS AMENDED BY ACT 14 OF 2008. IN SUPPORT OF CONTENTION THAT MUNICIPAL CO RPORATION HAS POWER TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY UNDER PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 146, THE ACQUISITION IS VOLUNTARY BY MUTUAL NEGOTIATIONS AND ONLY 6 ITA.NO.140, 141 & 142/HYD/2014 GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HYDERABAD WHEN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 146 COULD NOT BE INVOKED AND COMMISSIONER WAS UNABLE TO ACQUIRE ANY IMMOVABLE PR OPERTY, THEN, PROVISIONS OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1984 ARE APPLICABLE UNDER SECTION 147. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS LD. CIT (A) HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN A.Y. 2000-01, A SSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX ON THE STRUCTURAL COMPONENT OF COM PENSATION PAID TO THE LAND OWNERS, EVEN THOUGH ASSESSEE HAS D EDUCTED TAX ON THE LAND VALUE PAID. 7. LEARNED D.R. HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT THE EARLIE R CIT(A) ORDER WAS IN TERMS OF SECTION 194L OF THE I. T. ACT WHEREAS, THE PRESENT PROVISION IS INTRODUCED SUBSEQ UENTLY AS 194LA OF THE I.T. ACT AND ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADDUCED ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY MUTUAL A GREEMENT AND NOT BY COMPULSORY ACQUISITION. HE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE A.O. AND CIT(A). 8. BEFORE ADVERTING TO THE ANALYSIS OF THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, IT IS NECESSARY TO EXTRACT THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 194LA WHICH ARE INVOKED BY THE A.O. IN THIS CASE. PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION ON ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY 194LA. ANY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING TO A RESIDENT ANY SUM, BEING IN THE NATURE OF COMPENSATION OR THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION OR THE CONSIDERATION OR THE ENHANCED CONSIDERATION ON ACCOUNT OF COMPULSORY ACQUISITION, UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FO RCE, OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY (OTHER THAN AGRICULTURAL LAN D), SHALL, AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT OF SUCH SUM IN CASH O R BY ISSUE OF A CHEQUE OR DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHER MODE, WH ICHEVER IS EARLIER, DEDUCT AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO TEN PER CENT OF SUCH SUM AS INCOME-TAX THEREON: PROVIDED THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE MADE UNDER THIS SECTION WHERE THE AMOUNT OF SUCH PAYMENT OR, AS THE CASE 7 ITA.NO.140, 141 & 142/HYD/2014 GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HYDERABAD MAY BE, THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF SUCH PAYMENTS TO A RESIDENT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND RUPEES. EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, (I) AGRICULTURAL LAND MEANS AGRICULTURAL LAND I N INDIA INCLUDING LAND SITUATE IN ANY AREA REFERRED TO IN I TEMS (A) AND (B) OF SUB-CLAUSE (III) OF CLAUSE (14) OF S ECTION 2; (II) IMMOVABLE PROPERTY MEANS ANY LAND (OTHER T HAN AGRICULTURAL LAND) OR ANY BUILDING OR PART OF A BUILDING.] 8.1 AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE SATISFIED BEFORE THE PROVISION S ARE INVOKED: (I) THERE HAS TO BE AN ACQUISITION. (II) THE ACQUISITION MUST BE COMPULSORY IN NATURE. (III) THE ACQUISITION MUST BE OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY; AND (IV) COMPENSATION OR CONSIDERATION MUST BE PAID ON ACCOUNT OF ACQUISITION OF SUCH IMMOVABLE PROPERTY (OTHER THAN AGRICULTURAL LAND) (V) THE AMOUNT PAID SHOULD EXCEED ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND RUPEES (AT THAT POINT OF TIME). 8.2. IN A.Y. 2000-01, LD. CIT(A)-V, HYDERABAD ON CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES FACTS OF THE CASE AND T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194L (WHICH WAS ALMOST SIMILAR TO THE PR ESENT PROVISIONS) HAS CONSIDERED AND HELD THAT SECTION 19 4L HAS NO APPLICATION AND THEREFORE, ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSI DERED AS ASSESSEE-IN-DEFAULT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOU RCE ON THE PAYMENTS MADE FOR DEMOLITION OF SUPERSTRUCTURE, INC LUDING THE EXISTING BOUNDARY WALL FOR THE PURPOSE OF ROAD WIDE NING. THE 8 ITA.NO.140, 141 & 142/HYD/2014 GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HYDERABAD DETAILED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS EXTRACTED AS UN DER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE : 2.4. ON THE BASIS OF THE INTERPRETATION SEC.194L GIVEN BY THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1)(TDS) IN OCTOBER, 1999, IN BONAFIDE BELIEF AND GOOD FAITH, THE APPELLANT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON SUCH PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION IN A FEW CASES, BUT LATER, THE APPELLANT FURTHER EXAMINED THE ISSUE AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY COMPULSORY ACQUISITION AND TILE PAYMENT BEING MADE AS COMPENSATION FOR TILE VALUE OF STRUCTURES REMOVED, THE APPELLANT WAS NOT LIABLE TO MAKE ANY TDS. EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE LAND BETWEEN THE OLD STRUCTURE AND NEW STRUCTURE VESTED IN MCH , IN THE ABSENCE OF INVOCATION OF ANY STATUTE [OR COMPULSORY ACQUISITIO N AND IN THE ABSENCE OF PAYMENT OF ANY COMPENSATION FOR THE LAND, THE TRANSACTION WAS VOLUNTARY IN NATU RE AND, HENCE, DID NOT ATTRACT THE PROVISION OF SEC, 194L, 2.5. THE APPELLANT CLARIFIED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WAS NO LAND ACQUISITION MADE UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 BUT, THE LAND WAS ACQUIRER! THROUGH VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT AS PER SEC,146 OF THE HMCA, 1955, HENCE, THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF COMPULSORY ACQUISITIO N. 3. THE LEARNED A.R. OF THE APPELLANT VEHEMENTLY OBJECTED TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND STATED THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS SUBMITTED BY T HE APPELLANT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE WAS N O CASE FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 201 (1) OF THE ACT AND, INSTEAD OF IGNORING THE SUBMISSIONS OF TIL E APPELLANT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF TILE CASE PROPERLY BEFORE ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT INDULGED IN COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AND PROVISIONS OF SEC.194 WAS ATTRACTED IN THIS CASE. 4. I HAVE VERY CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, TILE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THIS REGARD AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS, 9 ITA.NO.140, 141 & 142/HYD/2014 GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HYDERABAD 4.1. SEC. 146 OF THE HMCA, 1955 READS AS UNDER :- '146. ACQUISITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BY AGREEMENT : WHENEVER IT IS PROVIDED BY THIS ACT THA T THE COMMISSIONER MAY ACQUIRE OR WHENEVER IT IS NECESSARY OR EXPEDIENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OF THIS ACT THAT THE COMMISSIONER SHALL ACQUIRE ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SUCH PROPERTY MAY BE ACQUIRED BY THE COMMISSIONER ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION BY AGREEMENT ON SUCH TERMS AT SUCH RATES OR PRICES NOT EXCEEDING SUCH MAXIMUM AS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE STANDING COMMITTEE, EITHER GENERALLY FOR ANY CLASS OF CASES OR SPECIALLY IN A PARTICULAR CASE. (2) AND WHENEVER, UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT, THE COMMISSIONER IS AUTHORISED TO AGREE TO PAY TILE WHOLE OR ANY PORTION OF THE EXPENSES OF ACQUIRING A NY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, HE SHALL DO SO ON SUCH TERMS AN D AT RATES OR PRICES NOT EXCEEDING SUCH MAXIMUM AS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE STANDING COMMITTEE AS AFORESAID. (3) SUBJECT TO U18 PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, IT SHALL BE LAWFUL FOR THE COMMISSIONER ON BEHALF OF CORPORATIO N TO AGREE WITH THE OWNER OF ANY LAND OR OF ANY INTEREST IN LAND NEEDED BY THE CORPORATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF ANY SCHEME UNDER CHAPTER XIII OR WITH THE OWNER OF ANY RIGHT WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN CREATED BY LEGISLATIV E ENACTMENT OVER ANY STREET FORMING PART OF THE LAND SO NEEDED, FOR THE PURCHASE OF SUCH LAND OR OF ANY INTEREST IN SUCH LAND OR FOR COMPENSATING THE OWNER OF ANY SUCH RIGHT IN RESPECT OF ANY DEPRIVATION THEREOF OR INTERFERENCE THEREWITH. (4) NO CONTRACT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OR OF ANY INTEREST THEREIN OR ANY RIGHT TH ERETO OR THE PAYMENT OF ANY COMPENSATION UNDER SUB- SECTIONS (1), (2) OR (3) SHALL BE VALID, IF THE PRICE OR COMPENSATION TO BE PAID FOR SUCH PROPERTY OR INTERE ST OR RIGHT EXCEEDS RUPEES FIVE THOUSAND UNLESS AND UNTIL SUCH CONTRACT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION. (5) EVERY CONTRACT OR OTHER INSTRUMENT RELATING TO THE ACQUISITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OR ANY INTEREST THEREIN OR ANY RIGHT THERETO SHALL BE EXECUTED BY COMMISSIONER, SHALL HAVE THE COMMON SEAL OF THE 10 ITA.NO.140, 141 & 142/HYD/2014 GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HYDERABAD CORPORATION AFFIXED THERETO IN THE PRESENCE OF TWO OFFICERS NOMINATED BY THE COMMISSIONER] AND SHALL ALSO HAVE TILE SIGNATURE OF THE SAID TWO MEMBERS. I N THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SECTION 125. (6) NO CONTRACT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OR ANY INTEREST THEREIN OR ANY RIGHT THERE TO NOT EXECUTED AS PROVIDED IN SUB-SECTION (4) SHALL B E BINDING ON THE CORPORATION. (7) THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION WHICH APPLY TO AN ORIGINAL CONTRACT RELATING TO THE ACQUISITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, OR ANY INTEREST THEREIN OR ANY RIGHT THERETO SHALL BE DEEMED TO APPLY ALSO TO ANY VARIATION OR DISCHARGE OF SUCH CONTRACT.' 4.2. IN THE EVENT OF TILE INABILITY OF MCH TO ACQUIRE ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY THROUGH AGREEMENT IN TERMS OF SEC.14G OF THE HMCA 1955, A PROCEDURE HAS BEEN LAID OUT FOR ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME, FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE, IN SEC. 147 OF THE HMCA, 1955. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PROVISION, READS AS UND ER:- ' 147. PROCEDURE WHEN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY CANNOT BE ACQUIRED BY AGREEMENT :- (1) WHENEVER THE COMMISSIONER IS UNABLE TO ACQUIRE ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY UNDER THE LAST PROCEEDING SECTIO N BY AGREEMENT, THE GOVERNMENT MAY, IN THEIR DISCRETION, UPON THE APPLICATION OF TILE COMMISSION ER MADE WITH TILE APPROVAL OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE AND SUBJECT TO THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, OR DER PROCEEDINGS TO BE TAKEN FOR ACQUIRING TILE SAME ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1594 AS AMENDED FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID ACT.]' 4.3. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT SEC.146 OF HMCA, 1955 IS AN INDEPENDENT PROVISION FOR ACQUIRING IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BY THE APPELLANT THROUGH AN AGREEMENT WITHOUT TAKING RECOURSE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT. 1894 AND ONLY IN THE EVEN T OF 11 ITA.NO.140, 141 & 142/HYD/2014 GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HYDERABAD FAILURE TO INVOKE THE PROVISION OF SEC.146 OF THE H MCA IN ANY PARTICULAR CASE, THE QUESTION OF COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT ARISES. DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO SUCH CASE, WHERE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT WAS INITIATED AND IN ALL THE CASES, THE ACQUISITION WAS THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.146 O F THE HMCA. 4.4. THE ACQUISITION OF LAND BY THE MCH WAS THROUGH CORRESPONDENCE AND THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE OWN ER OF THE PROPERTY WHILE CLAIMING THE COMPENSATION, AS PER THE PRESCRIBED PROFORMA CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE STRUCTURES ARE SURRENDERED VOLUNTARILY. IT IS ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE PROPERTY IS MADE OVER BY PRIVATE NEGOTIATIONS. 4.5 T HE LAND BETWEEN THE REMOVED COMPOUND WALL AND THE NEW COMPOUND WALL STOOD SURRENDERED WITH THE ROAD WIDENING WORK IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC ACQU1SITION BY PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION. AS PER THE IRREVOCABLE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY, ISSUED BY TH E PROPERTY OWNER, THE MCH IS PERMITTED TO DEAL WITH T HE PROPERLY, BUT, IT IS BY AGREEMENT AND NOT BY COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAW. 4.6. THE COMPENSATION IS CALCULATED ONLY FOR THE STRUCTURES REMOVED OR TO BE REMOVED AND IT IS MEANT FOR COMPENSATING THE DAMAGE/LOSS SUFFERED BY PROPERTY OWNERS FOR PULLING DOWN THE STRUCTURES COMING IN THE LINE OF ROAD WIDENING. 4.7. THERE WAS NO COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF A CAPIT AL ASSET BY THE MCH. EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE LA ND BETWEEN THE OLD BOUNDARY WALL AND NEW BOUNDARY WALL BECOMES A PUBLIC PROPERTY, YET, THERE WAS NO COMPULSORY ACQUISITION. NOR ANY COMPENSATION WAS PAID FOR IT. 5. THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.194L READS AS UNDER :- '[194L .. PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION ON ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSET 12 ITA.NO.140, 141 & 142/HYD/2014 GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HYDERABAD ANY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING TO A RESIDENT ANY SUM BEING IN THE NATURE OF COMPENSATION OR THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION OR THE CONSIDERATION OR THE ENHANCED CONSIDERATION ON ACCOUNT OF COMPULSORY ACQUISITION UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE. OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET SHALL, AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT OF SUCH SLIM IN CASH OR BY ISSUE OF A CHEQUE OR DRAFT OR BY ALLY OTHER MODE, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER, DEDUCT AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO TEN PER CENT OF SUCH SUM AS INCOME-TAX ON INCOME COMPRISED THEREIN. PROVIDED THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE MADE UNDER THIS SECTION WHERE THE AMOUNT OF SUCH PAYMENT OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF SUCH PAYMENTS TO A RESIDENT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND RUPEES : ] PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE MADE UNDER THIS SECTION FROM ANY PAYMENT MADE ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF JUNE, 2000.} 5.1. IT IS, THUS CLEAR THAT SECTION 194L CAN BE INVOKED ONLY IN A CASE WHERE THE COMPENSATION OR THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION, THE CONSIDERATION OR THE ENHANCED CONSIDERATION IS PAID ON ACCOUNT OF COMPULSORY ACQUISITION UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET. THEREFORE, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE SATISFIED BEFORE THE PROVISIONS ARE INVOKED. (I) THERE HAS TO BE AN ACQUISITION. (II) THE ACQUISITION MUST BE COMPULSORY IN NATURE (III) THE ACQUISITION MUST BE OF A CAPITAL ASSET. (IV) THE COMPENSATION OR THE CONSIDERATION MUST BE PAID ON ACCOUNT OF ACQUISITION OF SUCH CAPITAL ASSE T. IN OTHER WORDS, ALL THE AFORESAID FOUR CONDITIONS HAVE TO BE CUMULATIVELY SATISFIED BEFORE INVOKING TILE AFORESA ID PROVISIONS. IN THE PRESENT CASE. EVEN THOUGH. THERE IS ACQUISITION, IT IS NOT COMPULSORY. THE ACQUISITION IS THROUGH AN AGREEMENT VOLUNTARILY ENTERED INTO BETWE EN THE APPELLANT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. EVEN 13 ITA.NO.140, 141 & 142/HYD/2014 GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HYDERABAD OTHERWISE, THERE CANNOT BE A COMPULSORY AGREEMENT. SECONDLY, THE APPELLANT HAD NOT PAID COMPENSATION F OR THE LAND. SINCE THE COMPENSATION HAS BEEN PAID FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE T HE SAME CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN PAID ON ACCOUNT OF ACQUISITION OF A CAPITAL ASSET. 5.2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HER ORDER HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY THAN WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE HER BY THE APPELLANT TO SUBSTANTIA TE THAT THE CONTENTIONS MADE BEFORE HER WERE WRONG AND UNTENABLE. SHE HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY FACTS ON RECORD, TO PROVE THAT THE ACQUISITION OF THE LAND B Y THE APPELLANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ROAD WIDENING WAS ACTUALLY IN THE NATURE OF COMPULSORY ACQUISITION AS ENVISAGED IN SEC. 194L OF THE ACT. IN ABSENCE OF AN Y MATERIAL TO THE CONTRARY AND I N VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE ME, CLEARLY SHO WS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 R EAD WITH SECTION 147 OF THE HMCA, 1955 WAS NOT INVOKED IN ANY CASE WHERE SUCH COMPENSATION WAS PAID SHE HAD NO BASIS TO HOLD THAT THERE WAS COMPULSORY ACQUISITION ON ANY OCCASION IN THIS CASE. MOREOVER, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND ACTUALLY PASSED ON TO THE APPELLANT EVEN THOUGH THE RIGHT TO USE THE SAME FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES WAS VESTED WITH THE APPELLANT. 6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HELD THAT SECTION 194L HAS NO APPLICATION IN THE PRESENT CASE AND THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON THE PAYMENTS MADE FOR DEMOLITION OF SUPER-STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE EXISTING BOUNDARY WALL FOR THE PURPOS E OF ROAD WIDENING. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) OF TH E ACT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 9. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE FACTS ARE MORE OR LES S SIMILAR TO THE ABOVE ISSUE CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CI T(A) IN EARLIER YEAR, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE HAS A BONAFIDE BE LIEF THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO DEDUCT TAX ON THE AMOUNT PAID FOR VAL UE OF STRUCTURES. THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS TO BE ACCEPTED N OT ONLY ON 14 ITA.NO.140, 141 & 142/HYD/2014 GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HYDERABAD THE REASON THAT HE ANALYSED THE FACTS AND PROVISION S CORRECTLY BUT ALSO ON THE REASON THAT REVENUE ALSO ACCEPTED T HE SAME. HOWEVER, ON A CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF THE ORDER AS WELL AS THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE US, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS ORDER IS NOT FULLY APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT SET OF FACTS. EVEN THOUGH ASSESSEE MAY BE ACQUIRING THE PROPERTIE S INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 146 OF HMC ACT, 1955, IT IS NOT ENTIRELY ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY UNDER THAT PROV ISION ALONE. ONLY WHEN ASSESSEE WAS ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY UNDER SECTION 146 OF HMC ACT, 1955, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) W ILL APPLY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194LA ALSO, AS THERE IS N O COMPULSORY ACQUISITION AND THE ACQUISITION IS BY MUTUAL AGREEM ENT AS CONTENDED. THEREFORE, TO THE EXTENT OF PROPERTIES A CQUIRED U/S 146, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 194LA DO NOT APPLY FOR THE SAME REASONS ADDUCED BY LD.CIT(A) IN AN EARLIER YEAR. 9.1. HOWEVER, THE ISSUE CANNOT BE DECIDED ON SIMPL E SUBMISSIONS AS MADE ABOVE. AS PERUSED FROM THE COPI ES OF THE DRAFT AWARD PROCEEDINGS PLACED ON RECORD, THERE ARE THREE TYPES OF ACQUISITIONS UNDER TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE DRAFT AWARD PROCEEDINGS NO.AA/777/2 004 DATED ---/11.2006 PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 1 TO 9, THE PROCEEDINGS DO INDICATE THAT THERE WAS PUBLICATION OF DRAFT NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISI TION ACT, 1984 FOR ACQUIRING THE PROPERTIES FOR THE PURPOSE O F ROAD WIDENING FROM LIBERTY JUNCTION TO NARAYANAGUDA JUNC TION IN RESPECT OF 5 PROPERTIES. ON DISCUSSION OF VARIOUS R IGHTS OF VARIOUS PERSONS AND THE PROCEEDINGS INVOLVED, THE D RAFT ORDER DO INDICATE THAT PREMISES NO.1-3-6-691/1 TO 10 WAS NEGOTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE PARTIES REQUESTED TO WITHDR AW THE LAND 15 ITA.NO.140, 141 & 142/HYD/2014 GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HYDERABAD ACQUISITION PROPOSALS. THEREFORE, THE WITHDRAWAL PR OPOSALS UNDER SECTION 48(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT WERE BE ING SUBMITTED TO THE COLLECTOR, AS THE PROPERTIES WERE TAKENOVER BY MCH UNDER PRIVATE NEGOTIATIONS AND THE REQUISITIONI NG AUTHORITY HAS REQUESTED TO WITHDRAW THE LAND ACQUIS ITION PROPOSALS. (LAST PARA IN PAGE 5). THUS, IN THE ABOV E CASE THE PROPERTY WAS NEGOTIATED UNDER SECTION 146 OF THE HM C ACT. THIS IS ONE MODE OF ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY. 9.2. AS FAR AS PROPERTY NO.2 I.E., PREMISES NO.3-6 - 727/1 ARE CONCERNED, THE DRAFT AWARD PROCEEDINGS DE TERMINES THE LAND VALUE AS WELL AS STRUCTURE VALUE AND THIS PROPERTY WAS BEING ACQUIRED UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT. THER EFORE, THE ENTIRE COMPENSATION PAID TO VARIOUS LAND OWNERS DO COME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194LA OF THE I.T. A CT. THIS IS SECOND MODE OF ACQUIRING PROPERTY IE. THROUGH LAND ACQUISION ACT. 9.3 AS FAR AS PREMISES NO.3 I.E., 3-6-752/1 TO 5 , ON VERIFICATION OF THE OWNERSHIP, THE DRAFT ORDER DECI DES THAT COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF RS.15,7,044/- SHALL BE DEPOS ITED IN THE CIVIL COURT UNDER SECTION 31 OF THE LAND ACQUIS ITION ACT AS NO CLAIM FOR THE SAID PROPERTY HAS BEEN RECEIVED. P ROPERTY NO.4 I.E., 3-6-664/F4 ALSO, THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT WAS DECIDED TO BE DEPOSITED IN CITY CIVIL COURT UNDER SECTION 3 1 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT FOR DISBURSEMENT TO THE RIGHTFUL OW NERS AFTER ADJUDICATION. THUS WITH REFERENCE TO THESE PROPERTI ES EVEN THOUGH LAND ACQUSITION ACT WAS INVOKED THE COMPENSA TION WAS NOT PAID TO OWNERS BUT DEPOSITED IN COURT. THIS IS THIRD METHOD. 9.4 PROPERTY NO.5 I.E., 3-6-664/1, THE COMPEN SATION WAS AWARDED TO THE CLAIMANTS IN EQUAL SHARES. THUS, AS CAN BE 16 ITA.NO.140, 141 & 142/HYD/2014 GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HYDERABAD SEEN FROM THIS DRAFT AWARD PROCEEDINGS, THERE ARE 3 TYPES OF ACQUISITION UNDERTAKEN BY THE GHMC. ONE BY WAY OF M UTUAL NEGOTIATIONS INVOKING SECTION 146 OF THE HMC ACT (G HMC ACT), TWO THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS AND PAYMEN T OF COMPENSATION DIRECTLY TO THE OWNERS AND THREE BY GO ING THROUGH THE COURT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 31 OF L AND ACQUISITION ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES CONTENTI ONS THAT ENTIRE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY WAY OF NEGOTIATIONS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE DRAFT ORDERS/ OTHER PROCEEEDINGS P LACED ON RECORD. SIMILAR OBSERVATIONS CAN ALSO BE MADE WITH REFERENCE TO OTHER DRAFT AWARD PROCEEDINGS PLACED IN THE PAPE R BOOK UP TO PAGE NO.60. IN NUTSHELL, IT CAN BE STATED THAT A SSESSEE IS NOT ACQUIRING ENTIRE PROPERTY UNDER SECTION 146 OF THE GHMC ACT. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION THAT ENTIRE LAND WAS ACQU IRED BY MUTUAL NEGOTIATIONS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AT FACE VALU E. 10. NOT ONLY THAT, IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT ASSESSE E HAS DEDUCTED TAX ON THE LAND PORTION OF THE COMPENSATIO N PAID TO THE LAND OWNERS. IF THE PROPERTY WAS NOT ACQUIRED C OMPULSORILY AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN EARLIER YEAR IS APPL ICABLE AS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE WHY ASSESSEE HAS TO DEDUCT TAX ON THE LAND COMPENSATION PART ALONE, AS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 146 ARE APPLICA BLE FOR BOTH LAND PORTION AS WELL AS STRUCTURE PORTION. ASSESSEE HAVING DEDUCTED TAX ON THE COMPENSATION PAID ON LAND PORTI ON, IT IS NOT CORRECT TO CONTEND THAT STRUCTURE PORTION IS NO T ACQUIRED AND THEREFORE, TDS PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. N OT ONLY THAT, WHETHER ASSESSEE PAYS THE COMPENSATION FOR DEMOLITI ON OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE OR ACQUIRES AND LATER DEMOLISHES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ROAD, THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR SO LONG AS T HE PROVISIONS OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT WERE INVOKED FOR ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY 17 ITA.NO.140, 141 & 142/HYD/2014 GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HYDERABAD AND THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DETERMINES THE COM PENSATION PAID FOR ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, BOTH THE LAND PORTION AS WELL AS STRUCTURE PORTION ACQUI RED BY THE ASSESSEE FALLS UNDER THE WORD ANY IMMOVABLE PROPE RTY AS DEFINED IN SECTION 194LA AND THEREFORE, TO THE EXTE NT OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED UNDER LAND ACQUISITION ACT, WE AR E OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 194LA OF THE I.T. ACT. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT TO THE EXTEN T OF LAND AND STRUCTURES ACQUIRED THROUGH MUTUAL NEGOTIATIONS UND ER SECTION 146 OF GHMC ACT, WE AGREE WITH THE OPINION OF THE LD. CIT(A) GIVEN IN A.Y. 2001-02 UNDER SECTION 194L THA T THE PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY WHICH IS NOT COMPULSORY. IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THA T REVENUE HAS NOT CONTESTED THE SAID ORDER. THEREFORE, ISSUE ON THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN CRYSTALLIZED. 11. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RAISED THE DEMAND ON THE ENTIRE STRUCTURAL PORTION WHICH WAS PAID BY THE ASS ESSEE. THERE ARE NO DETAILS BEFORE THE A.O. OR BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AS TO HOW MUCH OF THE AMOUNT WAS PAID TO THE PROPERTIES A CQUIRED THROUGH MUTUAL NEGOTIATIONS UNDER SECTION 146 OF GH MC ACT OR BY WAY OF COMPULSORY ACQUISITION UNDER LAND ACQU ISITION ACT. ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK PROVIDED SOME OF TH E DRAFT PROCEEDINGS BUT NOT ENTIRE DETAILS OF HOW MUCH OF T HE AMOUNTS INVOLVED IN THE STRUCTURE PAYMENTS WERE NOT COVERED BY THE ACQUISITION UNDER LAND ACQUISITION ACT. THESE DETAI LS ARE REQUIRED TO BE PLACED BEFORE A.O. WHO SHALL EXAMINE THE DETAILS AND DECIDE WHETHER THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY MUT UAL CONSENT OR BY WAY OF COMPULSORY ACQUISITION. TO THE EXTENT OF PAYMENTS MADE/ DEPOSITED IN THE COURT, SINCE THE AM OUNTS HAVE NOT BEEN PAID TO ANY RIGHTFUL OWNERS, TO THAT EXTENT TDS 18 ITA.NO.140, 141 & 142/HYD/2014 GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HYDERABAD NEED NOT BE DEDUCTED AS THE MATTER WAS UNDER CONSID ERATION OF THE COURT. ONLY WHEN AN AMOUNT WAS PAID TO A RESIDE NT ON ACCOUNT OF COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, THEN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194LA WILL APPLY. THEREF ORE, A.O. IS ALSO DIRECTED TO EXAMINE AND EXCLUDE THE AMOUNTS WH ICH ARE DEPOSITED IN THE COURT OF LAW PENDING FINAL ORDERS OF ACQUISITION. THESE VERIFICATIONS ARE TO BE MADE IN ORDER TO EXAMINE THE EXTENT OF AMOUNT COVERED BY TDS PROVISI ONS UNDER SECTION 194LA OF THE ACT. 12. AFTER DECIDING HOW MUCH OF THE AMOUNT IS COVER ED BY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194LA, A.O. IS ALSO DIRECT ED TO EXAMINE WHETHER DEMAND UNDER SECTION 201(1) CAN BE RAISED A T THIS POINT OF TIME. AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE (P) LTD. VS. C IT 293 ITR 226 (SC) IN CASE THOSE LAND OWNERS PAID TAXES ON TH E AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY THEM, THEN, TDS TO THAT EXTENT, NEED NO T BE COLLECTED. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT ARE AS UNDER : IT IS REQUIRED TO NOTE THAT THE DEPARTMENT CONCEDE D BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE RECOVERY COULD NOT ONCE AGAIN BE MADE FROM THE TAX DEDUCTOR WHERE THE PAYEE INCLUDED THE INCOME ON WHICH TAX WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SHORT DEDUCTED IN ITS TAXABLE INCOME AND PAID TAXES THERE ON. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WHATSOEVER THAT P CORPN. HAD AL READY PAID THE TAXES DUE ON ITS INCOME RECEIVED FROM THE APPELLANT AND HAD RECEIVED REFUND FROM THE TAX DEPARTMENT. THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE RIGHT CONCLUSI ON THAT THE TAX ONCE AGAIN COULD NOT BE RECOVERED FROM THE APPELLANT (DEDUCTOR-ASSESSEE) SINCE THE TAX HAS ALR EADY BEEN PAID BY THE RECIPIENT OF INCOME. ONLY IN CASE WHERE THERE IS DELAY FROM DATE OF TDS TO THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF TAX BY THE SAID PERSONS, INTEREST UND ER SECTION 201(1A) CAN BE LEVIED. THESE ASPECTS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE 19 ITA.NO.140, 141 & 142/HYD/2014 GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HYDERABAD EXAMINED IN DETAIL ITEM-WISE AND THEN ONLY AO CAN R AISE THE DEMAND EITHER UNDER SECTION 201(1) OR 201(1A). WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, THE ORDERS OF A.O. AND CIT(A) ARE SET A SIDE AND THE ENTIRE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF A.O. FOR E XAMINING THE FACTS AND RAISING THE DEMANDS ACCORDINGLY. ACCORDIN GLY, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . 13. SIMILARLY IN OTHER YEARS ALSO SINCE COMMON FAC TS ARE INVOLVED AND ISSUES BEING SIMILAR, A.O. IS DIRE CTED TO EXAMINE THE FACTS IN EACH OF THE YEARS AND DECIDE A CCORDINGLY. THE ORDERS OF AO AND CIT(A) ARE SET ASIDE TO REDO A S DIRECTED ABOVE. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.06.2014. SD/- SD/- (V. DURGA RAO) (B.RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 18 TH JUNE, 2014 VBP/- COPY TO 1. GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HEAD OF FICE, TANK BUND, NEAR LIBERTY, HYDERABAD C/O. SRI S. RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO.102, SHRIYAS ELEGANCE, 3-6-6 43, STREET NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 029. 2. DCIT, CIRCLE 14(2) (TDS), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA 4. CIT(TDS), HYDERABAD 5. D.R. A BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD.