9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d S. R. BRAHMBHATT, JJ. Mr. Manish J. Shah for Petitioner. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by JUSTICE D. A. MEHTA - In light of the view that the Court is inclined to adopt the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal today. Rule. Learned advocate for the respondent is directed to waive service. 2. The petition has been preferred praying for following reliefs : (A) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records of the proceedings, look into them and be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order at Exhibit-I and Exhibit-L. (B) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction asking t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Piyaj, Tal.: Kalol, District: Gandhinagar. That after litigation, the petitioner and other co-owners became entitled to compensation along with interest in land acquisition proceedings. The total amount of interest was computed at a figure of Rs.20,01,716/-. It is the case of the petitioner that the said interest was relatable to a period of 102 months. As per the tax deduction certificate which was in the name of the petitioner, the petitioner filed return of income for assessment year 2001-2002 showing proportionate income for 12 months worked out at sum of Rs.2,35,500/-. After working out the tax payable at Rs.44,650/- net refundable amount was claimed at Rs.1,75,539/- based on TDS certificate, wherein, tax deducted at source was shown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or earlier assessment years could not have been filed because the period of limitation prescribed under Section 139 of the Act had expired. That petitioner had not contested the assessments on merits and had paid tax as per the assessments framed. It was therefore urged that respondent authority had erred in not granting the waiver petition. 6. Alternatively, it was urged that similarly situated agriculturists had carried the matter in appeal upto Tribunal contesting the taxability in hands of only one person instead of liability to pay tax by other co-owners and had succeeded before the Tribunal as could be seen from the order of Tribunal made on 07.06.2006 in I.T.A. Nos. 411 to 415/AHD/2006 in case of Shri Shakaraji Visaji Thakore and ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, the impugned order dated 20.12.2006 does not call any interference. 9. However, in so far as the alternative prayer is concerned, even if the petitioner has wrongly been taxed on the entire sum of compensation and interest, at least to the extent of charging interest under the provisions of Sections 234A and 234B of the Act, it would be fair and just if such interest portion is allocated amongst co-owners for computing the interest liability of the petitioner under the provisions of the Act. For this purpose, the petitioner shall have to establish before the Assessing Officer the share belonging to each of the co-owners. 10. Hence without expressing any opinion on the aspect as to whether the petitioner is, or is not entitled, to any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
