By Advs.harisankar v. Menonsmt.k.krishnasmt.k.krishnasmt.meera V.menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WEDNESDAY,THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 4TH ASWINA,1940 WP(C).No. 28688 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: ANIE JOSEPH,AGED 65 YEARSPULAYATH HOUSE, MAMALA P.O., THIRUVAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.K.KRISHNASMT.K.KRISHNASMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 28688 of 2018 JUDGMENT On the Government's acquiring her land, the petitioner received compensation. Faced with a demand for income tax, thepetitioner has filed a statutory appeal before the 2[nd] respondentappellate authority. When the appellate authority wanted thepetitioner to deposit 20% of the disputed tax as a precondition to itsentertaining the appeal, the petitioner cited hardship as a reason forher not paying the predeposit. Nevertheless, the appellate authorityrejected the petitioner's plea for waiver through Ext.P4. Aggrieved,the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2.The petitioner's counsel has elaborated on the merits ofthe matter. This Court, however, does not intend to go into them.The learned counsel has, further, submitted that though thepetitioner received substantial amounts under land acquisition, it wasonly compensation for the property she lost. Now, on the source ofher livelihood—that is, immovable property—taken away, she hassettled the award amount among her children. Now, the 20% of thedisputed tax,comes close to one crore, which the petitioner, an old W.P.(C). No. 28688 of 2018 woman aged 65, could not garner immediately, submits thepetitioner's counsel. 3.The Standing Counsel, however, stoutly opposes anyremission in the statutorily mandated predeposit. 4.True, the petitioner did receive money under an award as the Government had acquired her property. Substantial on theamount may be, we cannot except a woman of 65 years to kept theentire amount in cash, for years on end. As she has pleaded, she mayhave invested or disbursed the amount to her dependents,. So itserves the interest of justice, if the authority scales the predepositdown to ten percent. The Court accordingly orders. I, however, clarify that if the appeal goes adverse to thepetitioner's claim, she must pay the balance amount, too. Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE das W.P.(C). No. 28688 of 2018 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONERBEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3COPY OF STAY APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.36/2016 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES. EXHIBIT P6COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WA NO.1528/16 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.26004/17 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.