9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal awardee which she was liable to pay for the aforesaid assessment years. Therefore, so far as the payment of tax for the said assessment years are concerned, the same were in accordance with law and did not require any correction in terms of Sec.143 (1)(a) of the Act. We also appreciated the fact that subsequent payment of the tax amount under the VDI Scheme by the 1st appellant, s/o late Annamma Ouseph was as per the scheme launched by the Income Tax Department and at that point of time, if he was cautious enough, he should have restricted the payment to the balance amount after deducting the payment made by late Annamma Ouseph for the assessment years 1994-1995 and 1995-1996. Circumstances being so, late Annamma Ouseph could not have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said P.O.Kuriakose died on 26.06.1995 and for the assessment years 1994-1995 and 1995-1996, the writ petitioner filed returns of income as the legal heir of late Kuriakose before the 1st Respondent and accordingly paid the tax and Surcharge due as per the return amounting to ₹ 2,63,060/- and ₹ 80,192/- respectively. The 1st Respondent completed the assessment under Sec.143(1)(a) of the Act as per Exts.P1 and P1(a). It was the contention of the writ petitioner that she had adopted wrong figures for calculating part of the additional compensation and part of the interest based on statement obtained from the Land Acquisition Officer. Since there were family disputes, certain documents were not available with the writ petitioner, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... warded by the Land Acquisition Officer, and no other amount was received either by late P.O.Kuriakose or Annamma Ouseph at that point of time to file returns for the whole amount received under the Land Acquisition proceedings. 5. The writ petitioner's husband late P.O.Kuriakose had executed a will dated 23.04.1988 by which the 1st appellant herein was authorised to receive compensation in respect of the land acquisition proceedings. He was an assessee of income tax under the Mattanchery Circle, Ernakulam District. The 1st appellant later collected information in respect of the above proceedings and filed declarations under Voluntary Disclosure of Income (VDI) Scheme and paid tax due for the entire amount of compensation received, un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any amount paid under the said Scheme. 8. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner namely Annamma Ouseph died and consequently the appellants herein were impleaded as additional petitioners as per the order dated 06.03.2006 in I.A.No.2198 of 2006. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, Income Tax Department. 10. The learned Single Judge after evaluating the facts and circumstances of the case and the law involved in the subject matter, had arrived at a finding that the appellants are not entitled to get any reliefs sought for since the proceedings pursuant to the returns filed were completed under Sec.143 (1)(a) of the Act by the 1st Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
