Disposed

Harbans Kaur & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jan 2012CWP/7753/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the petitioners' claim for a mandatory refund of TDS under Section 194LA via a writ petition. They were directed to file income tax returns and claim any excess tax as a refund under the appropriate provisions of the Income Tax Act.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file income tax returns and seek refund of excess tax deducted at source under the Act.

Harbans Kaur & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No. 7753 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 7753 of 2011

¶5

Date of Decision: 16.1.2012

¶6

Harbans Kaur and others

¶7

....Petitioners.

¶8

Versus

¶9

Union of India and others

¶10

...Respondents.

¶11

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.

¶12

PRESENT: Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel, for respondent No.5.

¶14

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

¶15

The petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the respondents to refund the tax deducted at source on the amount of the land acquisition compensation which is exempted from deduction under Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) along with interest on the said amount.

¶16

Put shortly, the facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that the land of the father of the petitioners, namely, Darshan Singh situated in village Budha Khera, Hadbast No.1, Tehsil and District Karnal was acquired by the Collector on 2.1.2001 vide notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short

¶17

CWP No. 7753 of 2011 -2-

¶18

“1894 Act”) for public purpose, i.e. for development and utilization of land as residential and commercial area for sectors 9 parts 32 and 33, Urban Estate, Karnal. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs.4 lacs per acre for plain land and Rs.3 lacs per acre for low lying area and other benefits, i.e. solatium and additional amount of 12% compensation were also granted. The said award was challenged under Section 18 of the 1894 Act and the references were accepted with costs vide award dated 11.8.2009. They filed execution proceedings as the tax was deducted at source under Section 194A of the Act. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶19

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

It is not in dispute that the payment which has been released to the petitioners is on account of interest paid by the department. The averments made in para 8 of the writ petition read as under:-

¶21

“8. That the land of the petitioners was also acquired and reference court has decided the reference on dated 11.8.2009. The income tax authorities has deducted the amount under section 194A of the Income Tax Act which is illegal. The matter is squarely covered by the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in view of the judgment Risal Singh v. Union of India and others as this land was absolutely agricultural land as per award dated 11.8.2009 in LA Case No. 25/06, 26/06, 35/06, 36/06, 37/06, 41/06 and 42/06.”

¶22

CWP No. 7753 of 2011 -3-

¶23

It has further been accepted by the petitioners in para 10 of the writ petition that the tax has been deducted at source as per Section 194A of the Act.

¶24

Where the amount paid to the claimants related to amount of enhanced compensation and also interest thereupon, this Court considering similar matter in Kulwant Rai and others v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 10333 of 2011 decided on 2.6.2011, noticed that the interest element on enhanced compensation was taxable in the year of receipt and in such a situation, the petitioners were required to file the income tax returns as tax was payable on the said amount. It was further observed that the petitioners have an alternative remedy by way of filing the income tax returns and getting the tax deducted at source adjusted against their tax liability. If any amount deducted at source was found to be in excess of the tax liability, the petitioners were entitled to refund in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

¶25

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file the income tax returns and seek refund of excess tax deducted at source, if any, in accordance with law.

¶26

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

¶27

(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE

¶28

January 16, 2012 gbs

Harbans Kaur & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harbans Kaur & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Pepsi Food Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Mohan Kishan Roller Flour Mills Jalandhar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Pritpal Singh Bhangu Vs State of Punjab

Rajbir Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

M/S Venus Album Comapny Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.