2025 (2) TMI 987 - HC - Income Tax

Benefit u/s 10 (26) - direction to the NF Railway to pay the tax which was deducted at source to the decree holder/Respondent No.1 herein on the ground that in terms with Section 10 (26) there is an exemption of Income Tax on Scheduled Tribes - whether the said decree holder is a recognized Scheduled Tribe within the State of Assam? - HELD THAT - As in the instant case the consignment was booked from Jharkhand to North Lakhimpur. The entitlement of the interest on the compensation has to be taken as an income accrued at North Lakhimpur. The said area i.e. North Lakhimpur do not fall within the ambit of the Sixth Schedule insofar as the State of Assam is concerned. Considering the above as the benefit u/s 10 (26) of the Act of 1961 can only be permissible to a Schedule Tribe when the income had to accrue in the areas as specified in Section 10 (26) this Court is of the opinion that the learned Railway Tribunal erred in law and committed an error in exercising its jurisdiction while passing the orders dated 06.01.2017 as well as 09.06.2017 which have been impugned in the instant proceedings only on the ground that the claimant was a tribal of Arunachal Pradesh. The said being an error in exercise of jurisdiction this Court interferes with the said orders dated 06.01.2017 as well as 09.06.2017.

Summary

The High Court considered a case where the N.F. Railway challenged orders directing them to pay tax deducted at source to a decree holder, the Respondent No.1, claiming exemption under Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core legal issue was whether the decree holder qualified as a Scheduled Tribe under the Act, entitling them to the tax exemption.The Railway argued that the decree holder's status as a Scheduled Tribe within the State of Assam was not confirmed, and the tax deducted could be refunded if entitled to an exemption. The Income Tax Department supported this argument, emphasizing the necessity of the decree holder being recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in Assam to claim the exemption.The Court analyzed Section 10(26) of the Act, which exempts income of Scheduled Tribes residing in specified areas. It noted that the decree holder's entitlement to interest on compensation accrued in North Lakhimpur, not falling within the specified areas. Referring to precedent, the Court highlighted that migration of Scheduled Tribes within specified areas did not affect their exemption eligibility.Ultimately, the Court found that the Railway Tribunal erred in assuming the decree holder's tribal status without confirming their recognition as a Scheduled Tribe in the relevant areas. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders directing the Railway to pay the tax and disposed of the petition.In summary, the Court's decision hinged on the interpretation of Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the necessity of the decree holder being a recognized Scheduled Tribe in the specified areas to claim the tax exemption. The Court's ruling was based on the lack of confirmation of the decree holder's tribal status within the relevant areas, leading to the orders being set aside.