T.R.THOMAS, V. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER,

WP(C)/28409/2021

AI Insights

The case involves T.R. Thomas, the petitioner, who sought a directive for a timely decision on his revision petition regarding the return of income tax mistakenly paid on compensation for land acquired by the government. The petitioner argued that under Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, no tax was chargeable on the compensation received, yet he had inadvertently paid Rs.5,83,556. The respondents acknowledged that no tax was chargeable on the compensation but stated that the revision petition was still under consideration, and a decision was pending. Consequently, the court found no further action was necessary on the writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 691647 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: WPC No.3227/2020
• Laws Referred To: Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM; D G VIPIN
• Assessee Lawyers: THOMAS AMBOOKEN; B KUMAR; P O ANTONY; BLOSSOM MATHEW
• Keywords: Compensation; Income Tax; Land Acquisition; Revision petition; Tax refund
• Section: 96

Judgement Text

"WP(C) NO. 28409 OF 2021 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 5TH MAGHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 28409 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S: T.R.THOMAS, AGED 78 YEARS S/O.RAFFEL, THOTTIYIL HOUSE, KALOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 017. BY ADVS. THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN B.SAJEEV KUMAR P.O.ANTONY BLOSSOM MATHEW RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CR BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD, KOCHI- 682 018. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018. 3 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD, 2(2), IS PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018. 4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKAND, ERNAKULAM-682 030. 5 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION), KOCHI CORPORATION OFFICE, VYTTILA-682 019. 6 CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI-682 011. BY ADVS. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT D.G.VIPIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON WP(C) NO. 28409 OF 2021 2 25.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 28409 OF 2021 3 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ======================== W.P.(C) No.28409 of 2021 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of January, 2022 JUDGMENT Petitioner has sought for a direction to consider and take a decision on Ext.P4 revision petition filed by the petitioner in a time bound manner. He also seeks for a direction to return the amount of tax paid by him mistakenly on the compensation received by him for the land acquired by the Government. 2. According to the petitioner, in view of Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, there is no income tax liability for the compensation received on account of the land acquisition. However, by an inadvertent mistake, petitioner paid an amount of Rs.5,83,556/-. On realising the said mistake, petitioner preferred a revision as Ext.P4 as early as on 23.06.2020, which is pending consideration. It is in such circumstances, petitioner seeks an early disposal of Ext.P4 revision petition. 3. Sri.Christopher Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for the WP(C) NO. 28409 OF 2021 4 respondents filed a statement pointing out that under Section 96 of the Act, no tax is chargeable on the gain arising from the acquisition of land, which position is settled by the decisions of this Court. 4. A perusal of the statement shows that the revision petition filed by the petitioner is under the consideration of the 1st respondent and the matter was heard on 20.1.2021 and a decision is awaited 5. In Paragraph 3 of the statement filed by the respondent, it is stated as follows: ‘In the above context, it is submitted that the revision petition filed by the petitioner is under the active consideration of the 1st respondent and the matter came up for hearing on December 20h 2021 before him and a decision on the revision petition would be taken by the 1st respondent at the earliest. It also needs to be mentioned that the statutory time limit for the disposal of revision petition is not over.‘ 6. In view of the aforesaid statement, I am of the view that the relief sought for by the petitioner stands satisfied, since the respondents have already considered the claim of the petitioner and orders are awaited. Accordingly, nothing further survives to be considered in this writ petition. The same is closed, reserving the liberty of the WP(C) NO. 28409 OF 2021 5 petitioner to approach appropriate forum, if aggrieved by the order passed in Ext.P4 revision. sd/ BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE jm/ WP(C) NO. 28409 OF 2021 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28409/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 12.02.2016 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 09.03.2016 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 18.02.2020 IN WPC NO.3227/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF REVISION DATED 23.06.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 26.07.2021. "