9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es in the year of receipt. The tax at source has been rightly deducted and the petitioners can claim the refund, if any, admissible to them by filing the income tax returns in accordance with law - Petition dismissed. - Civil Writ Petition No. 14728 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 12-7-2017 - Ajay Kumar Mittal and Amit Rawal, JJ. For the Appellant : P.R. Yadav For the Respondent : None JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 3.5.2010 (Annexure P-4) vide which the tax amounting of ₹ 15,82,907/- was deducted at source by the Land Acquisition Officer, Panchkula. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to refund the said amount deducted vide letter, Annexure P-4, as Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) and subsequent deduction made in the year 2016. A few facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition as narrated therein may be noticed. As per jamabandi for the year 1963-64 (Annexure P-1), the father of the petitioners was owner of the land meas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count of interest awarded under Section 28 of the Act on acquisition of the agricultural land. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ghanshyam (HUF), (2009) 315 I.T.R. 1 (S.C.) and Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot v. Govindbhai Mamaiya, Civil Appeal No. 8103 of 2009, decided on 4.9.2014 wherein similar principles were enunciated as laid down in Ghanshyam (HUF)'s case (supra). Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Movaliya Bhikhuhhai Balabhai v. Income Tax Officer-TDS-1, Surat, Special Civil Application No. 17944 of 2015 decided on 31.3.2016 wherein on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Civil Revision No. 7740 of 2012 (Jagmal Singh and another v. State of Haryana and another,) decided on 18.7.2013, it was urged that the tax cannot be deducted at source. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. 4. Section 4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act ) provides for the basis of charge on the income of the assessee whereas the tax levied is collected either by way of tax deducted at sou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.) was a member had dealt with the similar issue holding that the petitioners cannot derive any benefit from Ghanshyam's case (supra) with the following observations:- 12. Adverting to the case law on the subject, inevitably, reference is made to the judgment by the three Judges bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Shamlal Narula v. CIT, [1964] 53 I.T.R. 151, which had considered the issue regarding award of interest under the 1894 Act. Interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was considered akin to interest under Section 34 thereof as both were held to be on account of keeping back the amount payable to the owner and did not form part of compensation or damages for the loss of the right to retain possession. It was noticed as under:- As we have pointed out earlier, as soon as the Collector has taken possession of the land either before or after the award the title absolutely vests in the Government and thereafter owner of the land so acquired ceases to have any title or right of possession to the land acquired. Under the award he gets compensation for both the rights. Therefore, the interest awarded under s. 28 of the Act, just like under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income-tax Act. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the case of TMK Govindaraju Chetty v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, [66 I.T.R. 465], Rama Rai and others v. CIT, Andhra Pradesh, [181 I.T.R. 400] and K.S. Krishna Rao v. CIT, A.P., [181 I.T.R. 408]. Thus by a catena of judicial pronouncements, it is settled law that the interest received on delayed payment of the compensation is a revenue receipt eligible to income tax. It is true that in amending the definition of interest in Section 2(28A) interest was defined to mean interest payable in any manner in respect of any money borrowed or debt incurred including a deposit, claim or other similar right or obligation and includes any service, fee or other charges in respect of the moneys borrowed or debt incurred or in respect of any credit facility which has not been utilised. It is seen that the word interest for the purpose of the Act was interpreted by the inclusive definition. A literal construction may lead to the conclusion that the interest received or payable in any manner in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Court in Dr. Sham Lal Narula, T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty, Amarjit Singh, Sunder, Bikram Singh's cases (supra), Rama Bai v. CIT, (1990) 181 I.T.R. 400 and K.S. Krishna Rao v. CIT, (1990) 181 I.T.R. 408, the assessee cannot derive any benefit from the aforesaid observations quoted above. 7. Appeal carried to the Apex Court by the assessee therein by way of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 34642 of 2014 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 18.12.2014 with the following order:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the relevant material. We do not find any legal and valid ground for interference. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. 8. In view of the above and also the amendments made by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.4.2010 noticed hereinbefore, no advantage can be derived by the petitioners from the judgment in Ghanshyam's case (supra). 9. Similarly, the judgment in Govindbhai Mamaiya's case (supra) relied upon the by the learned counsel would be of no help to the petitioners as in the said case, the judgment in Ghanshyam's case (supra) was followed. 10. Examining the issue of taxability of interest under Section 28 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
