Wp/102616/2015 Of Ganapati v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKADHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF JUNE, 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA -WRIT PETITION No. 102616/2015 (TIT) BETWEEN: GANAPATIS/O SUBRAY HEGDEAGE:80 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURER/O R.H. CENTRE HALAVALLIPO. KALLESHWARATQ. ANKOLADIST. NORTH CANARA ... PETITIONER (BY SRI VISHWANATH R HEGDE, ADV.) AND : 1.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)ROOM NO.59 H.M.T. BHAVAN4 FLOOR, BELLARY ROADGANGANAGAR,BENGALURUROOM NO.59 H.M.T. BHAVAN4 FLOOR, BELLARY ROADGANGANAGAR,BENGALURU 2.KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD.,REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTORSHAKTI BHAVANRACE COURSE ROADBENGALURUREPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTORSHAKTI BHAVANRACE COURSE ROADBENGALURU ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y V RAGHURAJ, ADV. FOR R1 SRI MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADV. FOR R2 ) SRI MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADV. FOR R2 ) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING To; DIRECTRESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 TO REFUND Rs.4,31,351/- TOPETITIONER. IN THE ALTERNATIVE DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER APPLICATION DATED 31.12.2014 VIDEANNEXURE-D. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARINGIN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has filed theobjection statement. The same is taken on record. 2.The petitioner is before this Court seekingissue of mandamus to direct respondents No.1 and 2 torefund Rs.4,31,351/- to the petitioner. In thealternative, the petitioner has sought for direction torespondents No. 1 and 2 to consider the applicationdated 31.12.2014 as at Annexure-D and passappropriate orders in accordance with law. 3.The petitioner claims that he was the ownerof the agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.108/2A2 measuring 1 acre 38 guntas and Sy.No.109-Bmeasuring 3 acres 4 guntas of Birkol village, JoidaTaluk. The said lands were acquired for the purpose ofHydro Electric Project. The compensation wasdetermined in LAC No.257/2006. Respondent No.2while disbursing the compensation amount hasdeducted a sum of Rs.4,31,351/- towards tax to bededucted at source. The grievance of the petitioner isthat such tax was not deductable on the compensationpayable on acquisition of agricultural land. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner in thatregard has relied on the decisions of this Court in thecase of Mysore Urban Development Authority by itsCommissioner, the Chief Accounts Officer, MysoreUrban Development Authority and the Special LandAcquisition Officer, Mysore Urban DevelopmentAuthority –vs- The Income Tax Officer (TDS) and theCommissioner of Income Tax reported in2008 (4) KCCR SN 247 and in the case of Akkamma –vs- Registral General, High Court ofKarnataka, Bangalore reported in KCCR-2011-1-58.In that view, it is contended that the amount deductedis to be refunded to the petitioner by respondent No.2. 5.The respondents have however relied on thedecision of this Court in the case of Guru Rao –vs-State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2012 KAR 6485wherein the issue relating to the deduction of the tax inrespect of the interest portion payable on thecompensation for acquisition of agricultural land hasbeen considered by this Court. 6.In the light of the said decisions, there canbe no dispute to the fact that insofar as the basiccompensation amount as determined for theagricultural property, no tax would be payable.However, in respect of the interest portion, aconsideration is required to be made by respondentNo.2 and thereafter a decision is to be taken. 7.Therefore, in a circumstance where 5.The respondents have however relied on thedecision of this Court in the case of Guru Rao –vs-State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2012 KAR 6485wherein the issue relating to the deduction of the tax inrespect of the interest portion payable on thecompensation for acquisition of agricultural land hasbeen considered by this Court. 6.In the light of the said decisions, there canbe no dispute to the fact that insofar as the basiccompensation amount as determined for theagricultural property, no tax would be payable.However, in respect of the interest portion, aconsideration is required to be made by respondentNo.2 and thereafter a decision is to be taken. 7.Therefore, in a circumstance where respondent No.2 has already deducted the amount andtransmitted to respondent No.1 and issuedForm No.16-A to the petitioner, at this stage, a directionto respondent No.2 to refund the amount would notarise. All that is necessary to be directed is that thepetitioner shall file the necessary returns ascontemplated under Section 239 of the Income Tax Actand in that light, the jurisdictional Competent IncomeTax Authority shall verify the same and passappropriate orders for refund if any, to the petitioner.Such procedure shall be followed in accordance withlaw and as expeditiously as possible. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/-JUDGE hrp