Cwp/8951/2019 Of Baldai v. Chief Commissioner, Income Tax And Others

225IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8951 of 2019 (O&M)Date of decision :27.11.2019 Baldai Petitioner VeTSuU The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax|Department and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARTHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN /// Present :-Mr. Vishva Nath Sharma, Advocatefor the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counselfor respondents No.1 to 3, None for respondent No.4. /// AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) inThis petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 directingthe respondents to re-pay/refund of TDS amount of Rs.1,27,633/- whichhas been illegally deducted vide Form No.16A dated 18.02.2016(Annexure P-3) from the compensation amount awarded by the MotorAccident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar vide Award dated 05.12.2000(Annexure P-1) to the tune of Rs.2,57,000/- which was later on enhancedby this Court to the tune of Rs.12,54,000/- vide judgment dated29.09.2014 (Annexure P-2). CWP No.8951 of 2019 (O&M) 2 The brief facts are that the husband of the petitioner had diedin a road accident on 05.11.1999. Ultimately the claim of the petitionerand her 5 children under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensationwas allowed. From the interest component of the compensation amount,respondent No.4-Insurance Company deducted 20% as TDS and it is therefund of this amount which is being sought. 3,Counsel for the petitioner has raised multiple arguments.One of them being that actually the amount was to be divided between sixdependents and therefore deducting the entire amount as if it belongedonly to the present petitioner was illegal. He has also pointed out that thepetitioner and her family members are from the lower strata of society andthey had no other source of income and on this score also this deductionshould not have been made. 4On the other hand as per the reply filed and as per the standof the counsel for respondents No.1! to 3 deduction of TDS on interes(apart from securities) is exigible to an initial deduction at source of 20%and if the income of the petitioner and her children does not exceed thetaxable income she could have well sought the refund by filing a returnbut that is also now delayed. © 5Keeping in view the entire factual matrix, we deem itappropriate to dispose of this petition with a direction to the petitioner tofile a return within two months from the date of receipt of certified copyof this order with the competent Assessing Officer along with anapplication for condonation of delay under Section 119 of the Income TaxAct, 1961and the competent authority is directed to take a sympatheticview in dealing with the application for condonation of delay andPOOJA SHARMA2019.12.05 10:05I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document thereafter the Assessing Officer may consider if the petitioner and herfive children are entitled for refund as per law. 6 Petition stands disposed of, TiSince the main case has been decided, the pending civilmiscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI )JUDGE ( ALKA SARIN)JUDGE.2711.2019Pooja sharma-IWhether speaking/reasonedYes/NoWhether Reportable |Yes/No