RAJU @PAULOSE V. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

WP(C)/38096/2010

AI Insights

The case involves a petitioner, Raju @ Paulose, whose properties were acquired for public purpose by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. The acquisition was done through negotiation and not through the legal process as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer deducted income tax from the compensation amount, citing Section 194(LA) of the Income Tax Act, which the petitioner contested, arguing that the section did not apply as the acquisition was not through the process of law. The petitioner sought a refund of the deducted tax, which was pending with the assessing authority. The court did not express any view on the eligibility for refund but directed the assessing authority to expedite the process and decide on the matter within one month.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 737107 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.A.No.2243/08 dt.8.1.2009
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, Kerala Land Acquisition Rules, 1990
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: S M PREM; K P SANTHI; P K NIJO
• Keywords: Income tax deduction; Land Acquisition; Refund claim; TDS Certificates; Compulsory deduction
• Section: 194-LA

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38096 of 2010(J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ RAJU @PAULOSE, CHELATHADATHIL, MATTAKUZHY, VARIKOLI PO,ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.S.M.PREM, SMT.K.P.SANTHI, SRI.P.K.NIJOY. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, (TDS) OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI ,C.R. BUILDING, IS. PRESS ROAD,KOCHI. R2 BY ADV. SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.38096 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Properties belonging to the petitioner having an extent of 6.89 Ares situated in Sy. No.115/7 in Block No.40 of Thiruvaniyoor Village and another extent of 29.17 Ares situated in Sy.No.311/15 in Block No.39 of Puthencruz Village were notified for acquisition for a public purpose, utilizing for the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. The land in question was acquired on executing agreement in Form No.10 (a) as per Rule 12(5) of Kerala Land Acquisition Rules, 1990. However, at the time of disbursement of the value of the property, the Land Acquisition Officer had deducted Income tax to the tune of Rs.13,40,336/-. Ext.P1 and P1(a) are the TDS Certificates issued in this regard. 2. According to the petitioner, the compulsory deduction of Income tax under Section 194(LA) of the Income Tax Act, was not warranted in this case because the land in question was purchased through negotiations and it was not W.P.(C).38096/10-J -2- acquired through the process of law as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Under such situations Section 194 (LA) is not attracted and the Land Acquisition Officer was not entitled to make deductions, is the contention. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a Division Bench decision of this court in W.A.No.2243/08 dt.8.1.2009 (Ext.P2) in support of the above contentions. However, the petitioner had filed return and claimed refund of the tax amount deducted, as evidenced from Ext.P3 acknowledgment issued for receipt of the return. Since the Land Acquisition Officer had already deducted the amount and transmitted the same to the Income Tax Department, it is for the assessing authority concerned to consider whether the amount is liable to be refunded or not. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the assessing authority is bound by Ext.P2 decision and therefore the petitioner is entitled for refund of the full amount. 4. Since the matter is now pending consideration before the assessing authority, I am not expressing any view on the eligibility of the petitioner. On the other hand I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the assessing authority is directed to consider and take a decision on an early basis. 5. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is W.P.(C).38096/10-J -3- disposed of with a direction to the assessing authority to process the return and to take appropriate steps to issue intimation to the petitioner on the basis of the return filed as per Ext.P3, if necessary after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb "