Bombay High Court
Barku Parsram Dhadi And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 30 September, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1
UNREPORTED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.5295 OF 2015
1. Barku Parasram Dhadi,
Age 65 years, Occ.Agril.,
2. Rambhau Shankar Kokande,
Age 42 years, Occ.Agril. ... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya,Mumbai-32.
2. The Collector, Jalgaon,
District Jalgaon.
3.The Special Land Acquisition
Officer No.(l), Upper Tapi
Project, Hatnur, Jalgaon.
4. The Executive Engineer,
National Highway Division,
Jalgaon, Dist.Jalgaon.
5. The Joint Commissioner,
Income Tax Office,
Jalgaon. ... Respondents.
...
Mr.A.B.Kale, advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.S.M.Ganachari, A.G.P. for the State.
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2016 00:24:08 :::
2
Mr.Alok Sharma, advocate for Respondent No.5.
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.10186 OF 2015
1. Vijaymala W/o Pralhad Mule,
Age 47 years, Occ.Agri.,
R/o Murumkheda,Tal.Mantha,
Dist.Jalna.
2. Ranjit S/o Marotrao Chavhal,
Age 35 years, Occ.Agril.
R/o as above. ig ... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector,
Jalna.
2. Special Land Acqusition Officer,
Collector Office, Jalna.
3. Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector),
Jalna, Dist.Jalna.
4. The Income Tax Commissioner,
Income Tax Department,
Aurangabad.
5. The Income Tax Officer (T.D.S.)
Income Tax Department,
Jalna, Dist.Jalna. ...Respondents.
...
Mr.A.R.Kale, advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.S.M.Ganachari, A.G.P. for the State.
Mr.Alok Sharma, advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and
5.
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5360 of 2013
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2016 00:24:08 :::
3
1. Dnyanoba S/o Sheshrao Khakare,
Age 63 years, Occ.Agril.
R/o Malegaon (Kh), Tq.
Ahmedpur, Dist.Latur.
2. Bhanudas S/o Sheshrao Khakare,
Age 59 years,Occ.Agril.,
R/o as above. ... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through the District Collector,
Latur, Dist.Latur.
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Purna Project, Latur.
3. Income Tax Officer-3,
4, Swati Chambers, Ausa Road,
Latur, Dist.Latur. ... Respondents.
...
Mr.J.R.Patil, advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.S.M.Ganachari, A.G.P. for the State.
Mr.Alok Sharma, advocate for Respondent No.3.
...
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND
K.K.SONAWANE,JJ.
Reserved on : 05.8.2016
Pronounced on : 30.9.2016
JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.)
1. Heard.
2. In all these petitions the land of the
petitioners are acquired under the provisions of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. While making the
payment of compensation, the land acquisition
authorities have deducted from the amount payable
as compensation the amount under TDS.
3. It is the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioners that the lands being
agricultural lands, the Respondents could not
have deducted
ig TDS as amount received as
compensation would be non-taxable. The learned
counsel rely on Section 2(1A) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961. The learned counsel submits that the
principal amount of compensation as well as
interest received on the said amount would also
be exempted from income tax. Even otherwise, if
it is held that the interest is taxable, still,
the claimants/petitioners would be entitled for
spreading over the amount for the period for
which the payment was made. The learned counsel
for the petitioners rely on the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of "Commissioner of
Income-Tax, Faridabad Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF)"
reported in (2009) 8 SCC-412 and another judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of "Bikram Singh
Vs. Land Acquisition Collector" reported in 1996
(7) Supreme 650.
4. Mr.Sharma, learned counsel for the
Respondents Income-tax Officer states that the
agricultural lands are falling within the
jurisdiction of Municipality in Writ Petition
No.10186/2015 and W.P.No.5295/2015 and would not
be entitled to the benefit of exemption.
ig The
learned counsel relies on the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of "G.M.Omer Khan Vs. The
Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax,
A.P.Hyderabad" reported in AIR 1992 Supreme Court
107 and the judgment of Division Bench of this
Court dated 27.8.2013 in W.P.No.5402/2013 with
connected Writ Petitions. The learned counsel
further submits that if according to the
petitioners they are not liable to pay tax then
they are required to file return claiming refund.
According to the learned counsel the Writ
Petitions also suffer from delay and laches, on
this count also they are required to be
dismissed.
5. We find that all these Writ Petitions
are filed belatedly. In W.P.No.5360/2013, the
award was passed by the Reference Court in 2003.
The amount was paid after deducting TDS in the
year 2004 and the present Writ Petition is filed
in the year 2013 i.e. after lapse of nine (9)
years, the amount under TDS being deducted. No
explanation is forthcoming for such a long delay
in filing the Writ Petition.
ig It also appears
that the amount of TDS deducted i.e. Rs.96,941/-
(Rupees ninety six thousand nine hundred forty
one) is not from the principal amount of
compensation but from the interest.
6. In Writ Petition No.5295/2015, the
petitioners in the deposition before the
Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference
have themselves admitted that the land acquired
is situated within the Municipal limits and they
should be paid compensation considering the lands
to be non-agricultural. In the said case also
the amount was deducted in the year 2008 and the
present Writ Petition is filed after lapse of
seven (7) years in the year 2015. As the land
according to the petitioners' statement on oath
before the Reference Court is situated within the
Municipal limits, the said compensation amount
would not be exempted from the income-tax.
7. In Writ Petition No.10186/2015, the TDS
is deducted in the year 2010 and the petition is
filed after five (5) years. In the award passed
by the SLAO, it is stated that Murumkheda i.e.
the village from which the land is acquired is
situated within 6 Kms from Mantha Taluka. The
petitioners contend that though Mantha is a
Taluka, there was no Municipal Council at the
time when the land was acquired. Be that as it
may, we are not entering into the said debate as
there is no proof of the same before us.
8. As observed, in W.P.No.5360/2013, the
TDS appears to have been deducted not from the
principal amount of compensation but only from
the interest and as the Writ Petition is filed
after nine (9) years, on the ground of delay and
laches, we are not inclined to entertain the
same. In Writ Petition No.10186/2015 and
W.P.No.5295/2015, the Writ Petitions are filed
after 5 and 7 years after the income-tax being
deducted. No plausible explanation is
forthcoming for the inordinate delay in filing
the Writ Petitions. Moreover, in
W.P.No.5295/2015, the petitioners themselves had
contended before the Reference Court that their
land is situated within the Municipal limits.
9.
Considering all the aforesaid aspects,
we are not inclined to grant any relief to the
petitioners. However, the petitioners may take
up proceedings with the Income-Tax Department for
claiming refund of the amounts of tax deducted at
source as may be permissible in law under the
provisions of the Income Tax Act. In case the
petitioners take up appropriate proceedings, the
time consumed in prosecuting the present Writ
Petitions, shall be considered by the Income-Tax
Department.
10. The Writ Petitions are accordingly
disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(K.K.SONAWANE,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)
asp/office/wp5295.15
