THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) V. CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER

ITA/176/2021

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, which had held that the provisions of Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act were not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the Tribunal erred in law and fact by not appreciating the legal provisions that mandate deduction of TDS at the time of payment by any mode. The Tribunal's reliance on cases from A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12 was also contested by the Revenue. The High Court of Karnataka, after hearing the arguments, dismissed the appeal, supporting the Tribunal's decision and keeping one question regarding the non-reliance on a Supreme Court judgment open for further consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 736154 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: The Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. Chief Accounts Officer, Balakrishnan Vs. Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: V CHANDRASHEKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: E I SANMATHI
• Keywords: Compulsory Acquisition; Income tax appeal; TDS; Section 194LA; Land Acquisition Act, 1984
• Section: 194LA; 260-A

Judgement Text

" - 1 - ITA No. 176 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 176 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) 4TH FLOOR, HMT BHAVANA, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE-560032 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD-16(1), HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE-560032 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E. I. SANMATHI. STANDING COUNSEL) AND: 1. CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE(BBMP) N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002 PAN AAALB1608F …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S ANNAMALAI, ADVOCATE) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO DECIDE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW; SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 26.06.2020 IN ITA NOS.1566 AND 1567/BANG/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE Digitally signed by NIRMALADEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - ITA No. 176 of 2021 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'C' BENCH, BANGALORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY P.S. DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal by the Revenue challenging the order dated 26.06.2020 passed in ITAs No.1566 and 1567/Bang/2019 by the ITAT1, \"C\" Bench, Bangalore, has been admitted to consider following substantial question of law: (i) Whether the impugned order of the tribunal is erroneous and perverse in law in holding that the provisions of Section 194LA of the Act are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case without appreciating the legal provisions of said section mandate that the income tax has to be deducted at source at the time of payment either by cash/cheque or any other mode attracts deduction of TDS and DRC in the hands of owner is valuable property (ii) Whether the tribunal is right in law in holding that the provisions of Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act are not applicable in the 1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench - 3 - ITA No. 176 of 2021 facts by relying on the facts of the cases pertaining to A.Y.2010-11 and 2011-12 when same is not applicable to present case? 2. Heard Shri. E.I. Sanmathi, learned Standing Counsel for the Appellants-Revenue and Shri. V. Chandrashekar, learned Advocate for the respondent-BBMP. 3. At the outset, Shri. Chandrashekar submits that issue involved in this appeal is covered by the decision of this Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. Chief Accounts Officer2 and also submits that question No.3 raised by the revenue in the memorandum of appeal be kept open. The said question reads as follows: \"WHETHER, on facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the Tribunal is erroneous and perverse in not relying upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balakrishnan Vs. Union of India, where in the meaning of compulsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 was explained and has been held that the requisition of land by an authority is always compulsory and the manner of awarding compensation/award cannot change character of acquisition.\" 2 ITA Nos.94/2015 and 466/2015 DD. 29.0.2015, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru. - 4 - ITA No. 176 of 2021 4. The said submission is not disputed by Shri.E.I.Sanmathi. 5. In view of the above, following: ORDER i. Appeal is dismissed. ii. Questions No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the Assessee and against the revenue. iii. Question No.3 extracted in para No.3 above is kept open. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70 "