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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY ,THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1940 WA.No. 2069 of 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28688/2018 of HIGHCOURT OFKERALA DATED 26.9.2018 APPELLANT/S:/PETITIONER ANIE JOSEPHAGED 65 YEARSPULAYATH HOUSE, MAMALA P.O., THIRUVAMKULAM, ERNAKULAMDISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.K.KRISHNASMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S:/RESPONDENTS 1THE INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD-1(1), ERNAKULAM-682 018. 2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM - 682 036.PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM - 682 036. BY SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC, INCOME TAX DEPT. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Vinod Chandran, J. JUDGMENT The appeal is from the judgment of the learned Single Judge modifying the conditional order passed permittingconsideration of the appeal on pre-deposit of 10% of thedemand made as per the assessment. Admittedly, theassessment order has been passed and the demand raisedfor the tax due on the award amounts obtained by thepetitioner under the provisions of the Right to FairCompensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafterreferred to as the 'Act of 2013'). Reliance placed bythe petitioner is on Section 96 of the Act of 2013, whichexempted, inter alia, levy of income tax on any award oragreement made under the Act of 2013, except underSection 46. In the context of deduction of TDS, therewas a challenge made to this Court relying on Section 96of the Act of 2013, which was allowed by the learnedSingle Judge as is seen from Ext.P7 judgment, in the caseof yet another assessee. The appeal by the Departmentalso was rejected, as is seen from Ext.P6 judgment. TheCBDT is also said to have accepted the fact that therecan be no levy of income tax on the awards passed underthe Act of 2013 as per Ext.P5. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that there need be no insistence for apre-deposit. We set aside the judgment of the learnedSingle Judge as also the conditional order passed atExt.P4. We direct that the statutory appeal beconsidered on merits. The Writ Appeal is allowed as above. No order as tocosts. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- ASHOK MENONJUDGE jg