THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) vs. CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER

- 1 -

ITA No. 175 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 175 OF 2021 BETWEEN:

AND:

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO DECIDE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW; SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 12.07.2019 IN ITA NOS. 3221 AND 3220/BANG/2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE

Digitally signed by NIRMALADEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

ITA No. 175 of 2021

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'C' BENCH, BANGALORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT

This appeal by the Revenue challenging the order dated 12.07.2009 passed in ITA Nos.3221 and 3220/Bang/2018 by the ITAT1, "C" Bench, Bangalore, has been admitted to consider following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether the impugned order of the tribunal is erroneous and perverse in law in holding that the provisions of Section 194LA of the Act are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case without appreciating the legal provisions of said section mandate that the income tax has to be deducted at source at the time of payment either by cash/cheque or any other mode attracts deduction of TDS and DRC in the hands of owner is valuable property

(ii) Whether the tribunal is right in law in holding that the provisions of Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act are not applicable in the

1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench

- 3 -

ITA No. 175 of 2021

facts by relying on the facts of the cases pertaining to A.Y.2010-11 and 2011-12 when same is not applicable to present case? 2. Heard Shri. E.I. Sanmathi, Standing Counsel for the Appellants-Revenue and Shri. V. Chandrashekar, learned Advocate for Shri. S. Annamalai for respondent-BBMP. 3. At the outset, Shri. V. Chandrashekar, learned advocate for Shri. S.Annamalai for the respondent- assessee submits that issue involved in this appeal is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of the Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. Chief Accounts Officer2 and also submits that question No.4 raised in the appeal memorandum be kept open. The said question reads as follows: "WHETHER, on facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the Tribunal is erroneous and perverse in not relying upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balakrishnan Vs. Union of India, where in the meaning of compulsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 was explained and has been held that the requisition of land by an authority is always compulsory and the manner of awarding

2 ITA Nos.94/2015 and 466/2015 DD. 29.0.2015, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.

- 4 -

ITA No. 175 of 2021

compensation/award cannot change character of acquisition." 4. The said submission is not disputed by Shri.E.I.Sanmathi in his usual fairness. 5. In view of the above, following: ORDER

i. Appeal is dismissed. ii. Questions No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the Assessee and against the revenue. iii. Question No.4 extracted in para No.3 above is kept open.

No costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE