Wa/1729/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) v. P.s. Abdul Rahiman

“C.R.” IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 8 DAY OF JULY 2021 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 1250 OF 2014 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 12208/2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/ 4TH RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI C.R.BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 : 1MACKAR KUNJU, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.AIMULLA, MOONNEPILLYPARAMBIL, ANAKKATTU CHENNAMBILLIL HOUSE, MUTTAM, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. 2MAJEED, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.AIMULLA, MOONNEPILLYPARAMBIL, ANAKKATTU CHENNAMBILLIL HOUSE, MUTTAM, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. 3THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KAKKANAD, PIN - 682 030. ERNAKULAM COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, WA NO. 1250 OF 2014 & connected cases 2 4SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.), NO.1, KOCHI RAIL PROJECT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, PIN - 682 030. 5KOCHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 019. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.07.2021,ALONG WITH W.A. Nos.1295/2014, 1296/2014, 1538/2014, 1539/2014,1728/2014, 1729/2014, 1818/2014, 1819/2014 & 170/2015, THE COURTON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO. 1250 OF 2014 & connected cases 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 8 DAY OF JULY 2021 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 1295 OF 2014 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) No.11943/2014 OF HIGH COURT OFKERALA, ERNAKULAM thAPPELLANT/ 4 RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI C.R.BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: 1ABDUL KHADER AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.MEETHEEN, MEETHARAKKAL HOSUE, CHAMPIARATH, THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 2 JAMEELA, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.ABDUL KHADER, MEETHARAKKAL HOUSE, CHAMPIARATH, THAIKATTUKARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 3THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR WA NO. 1250 OF 2014 & connected cases ERNAKULAM COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, PIN - 682 030. 4 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.)NO.1, KOCHI RAIL PROJECT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, PIN - 682 030. 5KOCHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION,VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 019. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BY ADVS.SRI.T.B.HOODSMT.M.ISHA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.07.2021,ALONG WITH WA.1250/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THESAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO. 1250 OF 2014 & connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 8 DAY OF JULY 2021 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 1296 OF 2014 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) No.12206/2014 OF HIGH COURT OFKERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI C.R.BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: 1. AMINA, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.VEERAKUTTY, CHENNAMBIULLIL HOUSE, 1. MUTTOM, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK 2. ABDUL RAHMAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER PEEDIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUTTOM, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O. WA NO. 1250 OF 2014 & connected cases ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, 3. BIJUTHA BEEVI, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O.ABDUL REHMAN, WA NO. 1296 OF 2014 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) No.12206/2014 OF HIGH COURT OFKERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI C.R.BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: 1. AMINA, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.VEERAKUTTY, CHENNAMBIULLIL HOUSE, 1. MUTTOM, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK 2. ABDUL RAHMAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER PEEDIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUTTOM, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O. WA NO. 1250 OF 2014 & connected cases ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, 3. BIJUTHA BEEVI, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O.ABDUL REHMAN, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUTTOM, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, PIN - 682 030. 5. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.)NO.1 KOCHI RAIL PROJECT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, PIN - 682 030. 6. KOCHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 019. BY ADVS. SRI.T.B.HOODSMT.M.ISHA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.07.2021,ALONG WITH WA.1250/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THESAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO. 1250 OF 2014 & connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 8 DAY OF JULY 2021 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 1538 OF 2014 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) No.12209/2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI C.R.BUILDINGS, I.S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. BY ADV SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: 1ABOOBACKER, AGED 52 YEARS, C/O. KOCHUNNI, CHENNAMBILLIL HOUSE, MUTTOM, THAIKKATUKARA P.O., ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK - 683 106. 2SAKEER,AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. KOCHUNNI, CHENNAMBILLIL HOUSE MUTTOM, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK - 683 106. 3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD - 682 030. 4 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A)NO.1, KOCHI RAIL PROJECT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD - 682 030. 5KOCHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM - 682 019. BY ADVS.SRI.T.B.HOODSMT.M.ISHA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.07.2021,ALONG WITH WA.1250/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THESAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO. 1250 OF 2014 & connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 8 DAY OF JULY 2021 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 1539 OF 2014 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.9236/2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI C.R. BUILDINGS, I.S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682018. BY ADV SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: 1V.S. LALANAGED 55 YEARS, S/O. VELIYIL SANKUNNY, SRUTHINIDHILAYAMN, NEAR MEDICAL CENTRE HOSPITAL, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM. 682 025 2K.H.JAYAPRAKASHAGED 52 YEARS, S/O. HARI SHENOY, G-3, KENT PARADISE, MAYFEST ROAD, THAMMANAM P.O. 682 032 WA NO. 1250 OF 2014 & connected cases 10 3THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD - 682 030. 4SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) NO.1, KOCHI RAIL PROJECT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD - 682 030. 5KOCHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM - 682 019. BY ADV SRI.K.R.VINOD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI C.R. BUILDINGS, I.S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682018. BY ADV SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: 1V.S. LALANAGED 55 YEARS, S/O. VELIYIL SANKUNNY, SRUTHINIDHILAYAMN, NEAR MEDICAL CENTRE HOSPITAL, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM. 682 025 2K.H.JAYAPRAKASHAGED 52 YEARS, S/O. HARI SHENOY, G-3, KENT PARADISE, MAYFEST ROAD, THAMMANAM P.O. 682 032 WA NO. 1250 OF 2014 & connected cases 10 3THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD - 682 030. 4SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) NO.1, KOCHI RAIL PROJECT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD - 682 030. 5KOCHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM - 682 019. BY ADV SRI.K.R.VINOD THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.07.2021,ALONG WITH WA.1250/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THESAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO. 1250 OF 2014 & connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 8 DAY OF JULY 2021 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 1728 OF 2014 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.9231/2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS),OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI C.R. BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. BY ADV SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: 1M.D. JOSEAGED 62 YEARS, S/O.DEVASSY, MALIYEKAL HOUE, BEENA-ANCHUMANA ROAD, EDAPPALLY ROAD, KOCHI-24. 2THE DISTRICT COLLECTORERNAKULAM COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, PIN - 682 030. 3SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (L.A) NO.1 WA NO. 1250 OF 2014 & connected cases 12 KOCHI RAIL PROJECT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, PIN - 682 030. 4KOCHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 019. BY ADVS. SRI.T.B.HOOD SMT.M.ISHA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.07.2021,ALONG WITH WA.1250/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THESAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO. 1250 OF 2014 & connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 8 DAY OF JULY 2021 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 1729 OF 2014 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.14914/2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI, C.R.BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. BY ADV SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS: 4 1. P.S. ABDUL RAHIMAN AGED 65 YEARS, S/O SAYID MOHAMMED 33/124C, MARHABA SOUMYA NAGAR, VENNALA ERNAKULAM 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 030. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION) WA NO. 1250 OF 2014 & connected cases 14 NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO.3, VYTILLA, ERNAKULAM- 682 019. 4. KOCHI METRORAIL CORPORATION BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, VYTILLA, ERNAKULAM - 682 019. BY ADVS. SRI.T.B.HOOD SMT.M.ISHA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.07.2021,ALONG WITH WA.1250/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THESAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO. 1250 OF 2014 & connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 8 DAY OF JULY 2021 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 1818 OF 2014 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.9056/2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI C.R.BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, VYTILLA, ERNAKULAM - 682 019. BY ADVS. SRI.T.B.HOOD SMT.M.ISHA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.07.2021,ALONG WITH WA.1250/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THESAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO. 1250 OF 2014 & connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 8 DAY OF JULY 2021 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 1818 OF 2014 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.9056/2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI C.R.BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: 1PAULSON PAULOSEAGED 38 YEARS, S/O.PAULOSE, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.PAULOSE, RESIDING AT CHAKYATH HOUSE, CHERANALLORE P.O., KOCHI - 682 024. 2THE DISTRICT COLLECTORERNAKULAM COLLECTORATE CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, PIN - 682 030. 3SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (L.A.) NO.1 WA NO. 1250 OF 2014 & connected cases 16 KOCHI RAIL PROJECT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, PIN - 682 030. 4KOCHI METRO RAIL CORPORATIONREPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 019. BY ADV SELMA JANNATH FOR R1 BY SRI.R.SANJITH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.07.2021,ALONG WITH WA.1250/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THESAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO. 1250 OF 2014 & connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 8 DAY OF JULY 2021 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1943 WA NO. 1819 OF 2014 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.4209/2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT:: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI C.R. BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 682 018 BY ADV SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: 1JOSE P.SIMONAGED 52 YEARS, S/O.SIMON, POWATH HOUSE, KUMARAKOM P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 563 2DAISY SIMONAGED 47 YEARS, W/O.JOSE SIMON, KUMARAKOM P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 563. 3JOSE M.D.AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.DEVASSY, MALIYEKAL HOUSE, BEENA-ANCHUMANA ROAD, EDAPPALLY ROAD, KOCHI-682 024 4THE DISTRICT COLLECTORERNAKULAM COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, PIN- 682 030 5SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.) NO.1KOCHI RAIL PROJECT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, PIN-682030 6KOCHI METRO RAIL CORPORATIONREP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682019 BY ADVS.MS.JENCY SUSAN JOSESMT.M.S.LETHASRI.V.SRI NATHSRI.K.R.VINOD THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.07.2021,ALONG WITH WA.1250/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THESAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO. 1250 OF 2014 & connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 8 DAY OF JULY 2021 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1943WA NO. 170 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.12207/2014 OF HIGH COURT OFKERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT:: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOCHI C.R. BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 682 018 BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: 1. AHEMMED AGED 62 YEARS, S/O KUNJAMMU CHENNAMBILLIL HOUSE KARIMBIN PURAYIDATHIL, CHOORNIKKARA KARA THAIKKATTUKARA P.O. ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK 683 106 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 030. 3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) NO.1 KOCHI RAIL PROJECT, CIVIL STATION KAKKANAD PIN 682 030 THURSDAY, THE 8 DAY OF JULY 2021 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1943WA NO. 170 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.12207/2014 OF HIGH COURT OFKERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT:: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOCHI C.R. BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 682 018 BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: 1. AHEMMED AGED 62 YEARS, S/O KUNJAMMU CHENNAMBILLIL HOUSE KARIMBIN PURAYIDATHIL, CHOORNIKKARA KARA THAIKKATTUKARA P.O. ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK 683 106 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 030. 3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) NO.1 KOCHI RAIL PROJECT, CIVIL STATION KAKKANAD PIN 682 030 4. KOCHI METRORAIL CORPORATION REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VYTILLA, ERNAKULAM - 682 019. BY ADVS. SRI.T.B.HOODSMT.M.ISHA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.07.2021,ALONG WITH WA.1250/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THESAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO. 1250 OF 2014 & connected cases C.R. JUDGMENT [WA Nos.1250/2014, 1295/2014, 1296/2014, 1538/2014, 1539/2014,1728/2014, 1729/2014, 1818/2014, 1819/2014 & 170/2015] Dated this the 8[th] day of July,2021 Bechu Kurian Thomas, J. The issue that arises for consideration in this batch of writappeals relate to the question whether tax is liable to be deducted atsource for amounts paid as compensation arrived at under negotiatedsettlements during acquisition of property. The learned Single Judgeheld that tax cannot be deducted at source under Section 194LA of theIncome Tax Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act') in respect of compensationpaid to the land owners which was arrived at based on negotiatedsettlements. 2. The above question springs from proceedings for acquisition of land initiated under Section 11 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 (for short, 'the LA Act') for implementing the Kochi MetroRail Project. After proceedings were initiated for the acquisition ofproperty under the L.A.Act, negotiations were held and settlements WA NO. 1250 OF 2014 & connected cases were arrived at with the respective land owners by the District LevelPurchase Committee. In effect consent awards were passed by theDistrict Collector under Section 11(2) of the LA Act, pursuant to theagreement between the parties on the price payable for the landacquired as compensation. The writ petition was filed contending thatthe lands having been purchased by the Government, on the basis ofnegotiated settlements, there is no compulsory acquisition and henceSection 194LA of the Act was not applicable. Reliance was placed onthe decisions reported in Info Park Kerala v. Asst. Commissionerof Income Tax [2008 (4) KLT 782]as well as in Thomas v. DistrictCollector [2013 (3) KLT 941]. 3. The learned Single Judge upheld the claim of the writ petitioners and allowed the writ petitions by restraining the revenueofficials from deducting any tax at source under Section 194LA of theAct, in respect of the compensation paid to the writ petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant at the thresholdsubmitted that the issue involved in these appeals was considered bythe Supreme Court in the decision reported in Balakrishnan v. Unionof India and Others [(2017) 3 SCC 634] and held in favour of theappellants. WA NO. 1250 OF 2014 & connected cases 5. Before we consider the aforesaid submission of thelearned counsel for the appellant, we wish to mention that theimpugned judgment was rendered on 03.06.2014 and even though theappeal was admitted in 2014, there was no stay of operation of thejudgment and accordingly the compensation amounts would havealready been disbursed to the writ petitioners, in tune with theimpugned judgment. 6. Be that as it may, Section 194LA was inserted in thestatute book by Finance Act 2004 With effect from 01-10-2004. Thesection reads as below: WA NO. 1250 OF 2014 & connected cases 5. Before we consider the aforesaid submission of thelearned counsel for the appellant, we wish to mention that theimpugned judgment was rendered on 03.06.2014 and even though theappeal was admitted in 2014, there was no stay of operation of thejudgment and accordingly the compensation amounts would havealready been disbursed to the writ petitioners, in tune with theimpugned judgment. 6. Be that as it may, Section 194LA was inserted in thestatute book by Finance Act 2004 With effect from 01-10-2004. Thesection reads as below: S.194LA.Payment of compensation on acquisition of certain immovable property:- Any person responsible for paying to a resident any sum, beingin the nature of compensation or the enhanced compensation or theconsideration or the enhanced consideration on account of compulsoryacquisition, under any law for the time being in force, of anyimmovable property (other than agricultural land), shall, at the time ofpayment of such sum in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by anyother mode, whichever is earlier, deduct an amount equal to tenpercent of such sum as income-tax thereon. Provided that no deduction shall be made under this sectionwhere the amount of such payment or, as the case may be, theaggregate amount of such payments to a resident during the financialyear does not exceed two lakh and fifty thousand rupees: Provided further that no deduction shall be made under thissection where such payment is made in respect of any award oragreement which has been exempted from levy of income-tax undersection 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in LandAcquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013). Explanation-For the purposes of this section,- (i)“agricultural land” means agricultural land in India including landsituate in any area referred to in items (a) and (b) of sub-clause (iii) ofclause (14) of section 2; (ii)“immovable property” means any land (other than agriculturalland) or any building or part of a building. 7. A reading of the above section clearly shows that whencompensation or consideration, as the case may be, for compulsoryacquisition of any immovable property other than agricultural landbecomes payable, the person responsible for paying suchcompensation or consideration shall be bound to deduct ten percent ofsuch sum as income tax at the time of payment. The proviso to thesection, as it then stood, further stipulated that the deduction need notbe made, if the aggregate amount of such payment to the personduring a financial year, does not exceed two hundred thousand rupees.It is obvious that the emphasis in the section is on the words‘compulsory acquisition’. If the nature of acquisition is compulsory,then, irrespective of whether the amounts are paid as compensation oras consideration, the deduction becomes mandatory, provided theother conditions are applicable. 8. Acquisition of property becomes compulsory in naturewhenever and wherever property is obtained by the government, WA NO. 1250 OF 2014 & connected cases 8. Acquisition of property becomes compulsory in naturewhenever and wherever property is obtained by the government, WA NO. 1250 OF 2014 & connected cases pursuant to proceedings initiated for land acquisition under therelevant land acquisition laws. Negotiated settlements arrived at withgovernment or governmental bodies for transfer of property, afterproceedings for acquisition have been initiated remain in the realm ofcompulsory acquisition. The decision to part with the property, whichis the subject matter of a negotiated settlement, does not originatefrom any exercise of a free mind of the owner of the property. Itstems from the compulsion imposed by proceedings for acquisition.The transfer of property remains in the nature of compulsoryacquisition. 9. The learned Single Judge relied upon a decision of theDivision Bench of this Court in WA 2243 of 2008. We are afraid thatthe said decision no longer holds the field in view of the decision of theSupreme Court inBalakrishnan v. Union of India and others(2017) 3 SCC 634. In the said decision it was held that a land ownerwould have been compelled to divest himself of his land because of thecompulsory acquisition and to avoid possible litigations, he would haveentered into negotiation and settlement. The court also observed that,merely because the compensation amount payable for the land isagreed upon between the parties, the same will not change the character of the acquisition from that of compulsory acquisition to avoluntary sale. The decision which was relied upon by the learnedSingle Judge i.e. Info Park v. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax[2008 (4) KLT 782]was overruled by the Supreme Court in theaforesaid case. 10. For a better comprehension the observations ofthe Supreme Court in Balakrishnan's case (supra) are extractedas below : 7.It is in the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court is todetermine as to whether it can be treated that the land of theappellant was compulsorily acquired. From the facts mentionedabove, it becomes apparent that the acquisition process wasinitiated by invoking the provisions of the LA Act by the StateGovernment. For this purpose, not only Notification underSection 4 was issued, it was followed by declaration underSection 6 and even award under Section 9 of the LA Act. Withthe award, the acquisition under the LA Act was completed.Only thing that remains thereafter was to pay the compensationas fixed under the award and take possession of the land inquestion from the appellant. No doubt, in case, thecompensation as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector was notacceptable to the appellant, the LA Act provides for making areference under Section 18 of the Act to the District Judge fordetermining the compensation and to decide as to whether thecompensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector was properor not. However, the matter thereafter is only for quantum of compensation which has nothing to do with the acquisition. It isclear from the above that insofar as acquisition is concerned, theappellant had succumbed to the action taken by the Governmentin this behalf. His only objection was to the market value of theland that was fixed as above. To reiterate his grievance, theappellant could have either taken the aforesaid adjudicatoryroute of seeking reference under Section 18 of the LA Actleaving it to the Court to determine the market value. Insteadthe appellant negotiated with Techno Park and arrived atamicable settlement by agreeing to receive the compensation inthe sum of Rs.38,42,489. For this purpose, after entering intothe agreement the appellant agreed to execute the sale deed aswell which was a necessary consequence and a step which theappellant had to take. 8. In our view, insofar as acquisition of the land isconcerned, the same was compulsorily acquired as the entireprocedure under the LA Act was followed. The settlement tookplace only qua the amount of the compensation which was to bereceived by the appellant for the land which had been acquired.It goes without saying that had steps not been taken by theGovernment under Sections 4 and 6 followed by award underSection 9 of the LA Act, the appellant would not have agreed todivest the land belonging to him to Techno Park. He wascompelled to do so because of the compulsory acquisition and toavoid litigation entered into negotiations and settled the finalcompensation. Merely because the compensation amount isagreed upon would not change the character of acquisition fromthat of compulsory acquisition to the voluntary sale. It may bementioned that this is now the procedure which is laid down even under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency inLand Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 asper which the Collector can pass rehabilitation and resettlementaward with the consent of the parties/landowners. Nonetheless,the character of acquisition remains compulsory. 11. Thus it is ineludible that once the proceedings for acquisition are initiated under law, whatever be the natureof payment, whether as compensation for acquisition or asconsideration for a negotiated settlement, the character of theacquisition remains compulsory in nature and hence Section 194LAof the Act will apply. The judgement in Balakrishnans’ case clearlycovers situations of this nature. In the above circumstances, thejudgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. Wedo so, in all these appeals. 12. As observed by us earlier, after the impugnedjudgment there was no stay of operation of the judgment andthe compensation or consideration as the case may be would havebeen paid without deducting the TDS. We clarify that in cases whereTDS was deducted before payment of consideration, the same isliable to be made over to the Income Tax Department. In cases wherethe consideration was paid without deduction of tax as per the judgment, it is needless to state that the judgment had worked itselfout. With the above observations these appeals are disposed of. Sd/-S.V.BHATTI, JUDGE Sd/-BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM