Wp(C)/38405/2016 Of Baiju v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938 WP(C).No. 38405 of 2016 (A) ------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- BAIJU, S/O. MUHAMMED KANNU , PANAVILAKATH VEEDU, BALARAMAPURAM, BALARAMAPURAM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695 501. BY ADV. SRI.S.ABDUL SALAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , C.R.S BUILDING, I.S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 682 018, ERNAKULAM. C.R.S BUILDING, I.S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 682 018, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA, KARAMANA, KALIYIKKAVILA SPECIAL UNIT, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, SPVL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT R BY MR.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DG WP(C).No. 38405 of 2016 (A) ----------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.9360/2016 DATED 8.11.16 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLICHAL IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND OTHER LEGAL HEIRS FATHER, REGARDING BASIC LAND TAX.THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLICHAL IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND OTHER LEGAL HEIRS FATHER, REGARDING BASIC LAND TAX. EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF TEH JUDGMENT IN WA 1536 OF 2016 DATED 5.8.16 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.HONOURABLE COURT. EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.A2 943/2012 DATED 30.11.13 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.38405 of 2016 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 2[nd] day of December, 2016 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to therespondents to pay compensation without deducting any taxunder the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issue is already covered byjudgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.12194 of 2016 andconnected cases, wherein a Division Bench of this Court held asunder: “3. It is seen that the very same issue has beenconsidered by a learned Division Bench of thisCourt in W.A. No. 1536 of 2016, whereby thejudgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.12484 of 2016 and connected cases has beenupheld. The learned Division Bench in thejudgment dated 08.08.2016 in W.A. No. 1536 of2016 has held thus: “3. We find that the judgment of the learnedsingle Judge is just and proper in as much asSection 96 of the Act, 2013 clearly discloses that noincome tax or stamp duty shall be levied on anyaward or agreement made under this Act, exceptunder Section 46. It is not in dispute that Section46 of the Act, 2013 is not applicable to the facts ofthis case. Hence, it is amply clear that as perSection 96 of the Act, 2013, exemption is providedfor levying income tax and stamp duty. In an identical case, a Division Bench of this Court inW.A.No. 1422 of 2015 has already concluded thatincome tax is not liable to be deducted from thecompensation payable to similarly placed persons.The learned single Judge, following the dictum laiddown in W.A. No. 1422 of 2015 and observing theprovisions of Section 96 of the Act, 2013, hasallowed the writ petitions directing the authoritiesto pay compensation to the petitioner, withoutdeducting any amount towards income tax or stampduty.” identical case, a Division Bench of this Court inW.A.No. 1422 of 2015 has already concluded thatincome tax is not liable to be deducted from thecompensation payable to similarly placed persons.The learned single Judge, following the dictum laiddown in W.A. No. 1422 of 2015 and observing theprovisions of Section 96 of the Act, 2013, hasallowed the writ petitions directing the authoritiesto pay compensation to the petitioner, withoutdeducting any amount towards income tax or stampduty.” In the light of the above, the legal positionnow stands clarified that in view of Section 96 ofthe Act, 2013, the deduction towards income taxcannot be made from the compensation payable tothe land owners. Therefore, these writ petitions aredisposed of clarifying the position as above anddirecting that the compensation be disbursed to thepetitioners without deducting any amount towardsincome tax.” Having regard to the aforesaid finding, there will be adirection to the respondent authority to release the amount paidunder the 2013 Act, without deducting any tax under Section194-LA. Writ petition is disposed of as above. DG Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE