Wp(C)/37438/2016 Of Rani v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1938 WP(C).No. 37438 of 2016 (D) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):------------- RANI, D/O NOORINNISA, PANAVILAKATH VEEDU, BALARAMAPURAM, BALARAMAPURAM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN:695501. BY ADV. SRI.S.ABDUL SALAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), C.R.S BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682018, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, (SPECIAL TAHSILDAR L.A), KARAMANA-KALIYIKKAVILA SECIAL UNIT, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, SPVL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. R1 BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, SC R2 & 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX NIL./ TRUE COPY /P.S. TO JUDGE PJ A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.37438 of 2016 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23[rd] day of November, 2016 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the respondents to refrain from deducting theincome tax on the amount accrued in the land acquisitionproceedings. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that theissue is already covered by judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.12194 of 2016 and connected cases, wherein a DivisionBench of this Court held as under: Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the “3. It is seen that the very same issue has beenconsidered by a learned Division Bench of this Court inW.A. No. 1536 of 2016, whereby the judgment of thelearned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 12484 of 2016 andconnected cases has been upheld. The learned DivisionBench in the judgment dated 08.08.2016 in W.A. No.1536 of 2016 has held thus: “3. We find that the judgment of the learned singleJudge is just and proper in as much as Section 96 of the Act,2013 clearly discloses that no income tax or stamp duty shall be levied on any award or agreement made under this Act,except under Section 46. It is not in dispute that Section 46of the Act, 2013 is not applicable to the facts of this case.Hence, it is amply clear that as per Section 96 of the Act,2013, exemption is provided for levying income tax and stampduty. In an identical case, a Division Bench of this Court inW.A.No. 1422 of 2015 has already concluded that income taxis not liable to be deducted from the compensation payable tosimilarly placed persons. The learned single Judge, followingthe dictum laid down in W.A. No. 1422 of 2015 and observingthe provisions of Section 96 of the Act, 2013, has allowed thewrit petitions directing the authorities to pay compensation tothe petitioner, without deducting any amount towards incometax or stamp duty.” In the light of the above, the legal position nowstands clarified that in view of Section 96 of the Act,2013, the deduction towards income tax cannot be madefrom the compensation payable to the land owners.Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of clarifyingthe position as above and directing that thecompensation be disbursed to the petitioners withoutdeducting any amount towards income tax.” 3.Taking into account the aforesaid facts, I do notthink that anything further survives to be decided in thepresent writ petition. The amount shall be disbursed to thepetitioner taking note of Section 96 of the Right to Fair W.P.(C) No.37438 of 2016 -3- Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE