Allowed

Nayana Pradhan v. State

Orissa HC8 Nov 2021WP(C)/4777/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a demand for tax deduction at source against land acquisition compensation, the Single Judge quashed the consequential demand against the petitioner after the Tribunal quashed the tax demand raised against the Land Acquisition Officer.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the tax demand raised against the petitioner aggregating Rs. 8,96,554/- including principal and interest.

Nayana Pradhan Vs State — Income Tax | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.4777 of 2010

¶3

Nayana Pradhan

¶4

…. Petitioner Mr. R.P. Kar, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and Others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties Smt. Suman Pattanayak Additional Government Advocate

¶8

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

08.11.2021

The writ petition is directed against the demand dated 8^th October, 2009 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Balasore (LAO) against the Petitioner requiring him to deposit the income tax under Section 194 LA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the sum of Rs.6,38,117/- and interest thereon under Section 201(1A) in the sum of Rs.2,58,437/- aggregating Rs.8,96,554/-.

¶14

On 29^th April, 2010 this Court passed an interim order stating that no deduction shall be made from the compensation amount pursuant to the impugned demand.

¶15

The background facts are that the Petitioner was granted land acquisition compensation in the sum of Rs.56,87,313/- pertaining to the land belonging to him in Plot No.539 of an area Ac 0.40

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

decimals of Gharabari-i Kissam under Khata No.356 situated in Mouza Bagbrundaban in Balasore district.

¶18

Although it was incumbent on the LAO to have deducted tax at source while paying the compensation amount, he failed to do so. Meanwhile, the Petitioner and others preferred applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act) for enhancement of compensation. Against the orders passed by the reference Court, first appeals were preferred both by the land owners as well as the State. In those first appeals, interim orders were passed by this Court requiring the State to deposit 50% of the compensation amount.

¶19

At that stage, the Income Tax Department raised a demand against the LAO, Balasore regarding non-deduction of the tax at source. The appeal filed by the LAO before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Cuttack was dismissed by an order dated 28^th June, 2010. Aggrieved by the said order, the LAO preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in I.T.A. No.320/CTK/2010. By an order dated 12^th November, 2010 the said appeal was allowed by the ITAT thereby quashing the demand raised against the LAO.

¶20

It is stated that as far as the present Petitioner is concerned, no separate demand was raised against him by the Income Tax Department.

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

With the demand raised against the LAO standing quashed by the ITAT, it is obvious that the impugned demand against the present Petitioner, which was consequential, cannot survive. It is accordingly quashed.

¶23

The writ petition is allowed in the above terms, but in the circumstances, with no order as to costs.

¶24

An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶25

(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge

¶26

S.K. Jena/P.A.

¶27

Page 3 of 3

Nayana Pradhan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nayana Pradhan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Divisional Manager,Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,,Represented by Regional Manager Vs Purna Chandra Senapati

Ramesh Ch.Mohanty Vs Secretary to Govt.of Odisha

Murarilal Agrawal Vs Union of India,New Delhi

Mahendra Rout Vs State of Odisha

Balaaram Mohanty Vs State and Ors.

Mamata Sarangi Vs State