Puran & Ors. v. The Union of India & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 17 Mar 2011
- Bench
- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Provisions considered
- Income Tax Act, 1961 s. 194LA
Judgment
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. S. P. Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. This petition seeks quashing of TDS certificates issued by the Land Acquisition Collector and for refund of tax deducted at source. Case of the petitioners is that their land has been acquired and they were paid compensation on which tax was deducted at source under Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”). Since the land was not a capital asset, being agricultural land, the petitioners did not have any taxable income. This Court held in C.W.P. No.9912 of 2009 Risal Singh & another v. The Union of India & others decided on 11.1.2010 that it is the duty of the collector to satisfy himself prima facie that any income tax is payable before deduction is made. C.W.P. No.4807 of 2011 2 We find that the deduction of tax was more than three years back and this petition has been filed after three years on accrual of cause of action without any explanation for delay. The petitioners have remedy of filing the return and getting the refund in accordance with the provisions of the Act. No doubt, this Court has held that deduction should not be made unless income is prima facie taxable, the petitioners have remedies to get relief in accordance with law. No order is, thus, called for at this stage in this petition and the same is disposed of accordingly. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE March 17, 2011 ashwani ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Income Tax Act, 1961 — s. 194LA.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 17 Mar 2011. The bench was ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.