IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 26598 of 2010 (Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ SMT.MARYKUTTY,W/O.P.P.GEORGE, POOTHULLY HOUSE,VANIYAMPARA PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI-110001. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA), SLAO AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, NHDP,THRISSUR, PIN 680001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA CIRCLE , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL BY ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.26598 of 2010-Y ---------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by deduction of income tax at source, with respect to compensation allowed for land acquisition, in relation to agricultural land acquired for widening of NH 47 from Mannuthy to Walayar. It is stated that out of the total amount of compensation of Rs.9,19,116/- the second respondent made deduction to the extent of 10% towards income tax and 3% towards educational cess, totaling to a sum of Rs.94,669/-. It is contended that going by the provisions in Section 194(L) and 194(LA) of the Income Tax Act, the agricultural land will not come within the purview of 'capital asset' and any amount received as consideration with respect to sale of said land is exempted from payment of income tax. Therefore deduction made in this regard is illegal, is the contention. 2. It is evident that, as per Ext.P3 certificate deduction of tax at source, under Section 203 of the Income Tax Act 1961, was certified by the second respondent in Form No.16A. Hence it is W.P(C) No.26598 of 2010-Y 2 clear that the second respondent had already deducted the tax amount and the same has already been remitted in favour of the income tax department. Under such circumstances the course left open to the petitioner is to file return before the assessing authority concerned and to claim refund of the amount, if the petitioner is not liable for payment of income tax. 3. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to take appropriate remedy before the assessing officer under the Income Tax Act. Needless to say that the appropriate authority will consider the claim and take a decision regarding liability for payment of tax at the earliest. Refund if any due shall be effected without any further delay. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab