JALALUDEEN V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/34991/2016

AI Insights

The case involves Jalaludeen, a 78-year-old petitioner, who sought relief from the High Court of Kerala to prevent the deduction of income tax from compensation due to him in land acquisition proceedings. The petitioner argued that the income tax should not be deducted based on the provisions of the Act, 2013. The respondents included the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), the District Collector, and the Land Acquisition Officer. The court referenced a previous Division Bench decision in W.A.No.1536 of 2016, which upheld that under Section 96 of the Act, 2013, no income tax or stamp duty should be levied on the compensation awarded under this Act, except as provided under Section 46, which was not relevant to this case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755489 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.A.No. 1536 of 2016, W.A.No. 12194/2016, W.A.No. 1422 of 2015
• Laws Referred To: Act, 2013
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: V K SHAMSUDHEEN
• Assessee Lawyers: S S ALAM
• Keywords: Compensation; Income Tax; Land Acquisition; Mandamus
• Section: 46; 96

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/10TH KARTHIKA, 1938 WP(C).No. 34991 of 2016 (Y) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S) : -------------------------- JALALUDEEN, S/O. HAMEED KANNU, AGED 78 YEARS, “ HAMEED MANZIL”, BALARAMAPURAM, BALARAMAPURAM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 501. BY ADV. SRI.S.ABDUL SALAM RESPONDENT(S) : ---------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), C.R.S BUILDING I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI- 682 018, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 001. 3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (SPECIAL TAHSILDAR L.A), KARAMANA-KALIYIKKAVILA SPECIAL UNIT, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, SPVL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Msd. WP(C).No. 34991 of 2016 (Y) ----------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT P1: PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO. 1536 OF 2016 DATED 08.08.2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. A2 943/2012 DATED 30.11.2013 OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE. Msd. A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.34991 of 2016 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of November 2016 J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief: “(a) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order directing the respondents to refrain from deducting the income tax on the amount accrued in the land acquisition proceedings, evidenced by the Ext.P2 of the third respondent. ” (b) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents 1 to 3 to disburse the whole compensation due to the petitioner as per the Ext.P2 without any deduction of income tax. (c) to award the cost of this petition to the petitioner;” 2. The issue covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.12194/2016 and connected cases wherein the Division Bench held as under: W.P.C.No.34991/2016 2 “3. It is seen that the very same issue has been considered by a learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1536 of 2016, whereby the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.C.No.12484 of 2016 and connected cases has been upheld. The learned Division Bench in the judgment dated 08.08.2016 in W.A.No.1536 of 2016 has held thus: 3. We find that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is just and proper in as much as Section 96 of the Act, 2013 clearly discloses that no income tax or stamp duty shall be levied on any award or agreement made under this Act, except under Section 46. It is not in dispute that Section 46 of the Act, 2013 is not applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, it is amply clear that as per Section 96 of the Act, 2013, exemption is provided for levying income tax and stamp duty. In an identical case, a Division Bench of this W.P.C.No.34991/2016 3 Court in W.A.No.1422 of 2015 has already concluded that income tax is not liable to be deducted from the compensation payable to similarly placed persons. The learned Single Judge, following the dictum laid down in W.A.No.1422 of 2015 and observing the provisions of Section 96 of the Act, 2013, has allowed the writ petitions directing the authorities to pay compensation to the petitioner, without deducting any amount towards income tax or stamp duty.” In the light of the above, the legal position now stands clarified that in view of Section 96 of the Act, 2013, the deduction towards income tax cannot be made from the compensation payable to the land owners. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of clarifying the position as above and directing that the compensation be disbursed to the petitioners without deducting any amount towards income tax.” W.P.C.No.34991/2016 4 3. Having regard to the aforesaid, there will be a direction to the respondent authorities to pay compensation to the petitioner without deducting any amount towards income tax. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr "