31.WPNo.10492021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 1049 OF 2021

Seema Jagdish Patil,

704-705, Saya Park, Pakhadi,

Kharigaon, Kalwa, Thane – 400 605.

…

Petitioner

Versus

1. The National Hi-Speed Rail

Corporation Ltd., 1105-1106

Universal Magestic, P. L.

Lokhande Marg, Chembur (West),

Mumbai- 400 013.

2. The Principle Commissioner of

Income Tax-1, Thane; having offce at

6^th Floor, Asher IT park, Road No.16,

Wagle Ind. Estate, Thane (West),

Thane – 400604.

3. The Commissioner of Income Tax

(TDS)-2, Mumbai, having offce at

Ayurved Prachar Sanstha Building,

Charni Road, Mumbai – 400 012.

4. Union of India,

Through the Secretary,

Ministry of Railways,

Government of India,

North Block, New Delhi - 110001

…

Respondents

Mr. Devendra Jain, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Adv. Akshaya Puthran, Adv. Nayantara Bhattacharyya i/b.

S. K. Singhi & Co., LLP Advocates, Advocate for the

Respondent No.1/National High Speed Rail Corporation.

Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w. Ms. Sumandevi Yadav, Advocate for

the Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

CORAM:

S.V. GANGAPURWALA &

M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.

RESERVED ON : MAY 4, 2022

PRONOUNCED ON

: JUNE 9, 2022

Gaikwad RD

1/10

31.WPNo.10492021.doc

JUDGMENT : ( Per – S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.)

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of

the parties.

2.

The petitioner assails an action on the part of the

respondent No.1 in deducting income tax at source from the

compensation paid to the petitioner by the respondent No.1

for the acquisition of his land.

3.

The petitioner claims to be the owner of certain plots

of land situated at Bhiwandi, Thane. The respondent No.1

acquired the land of the petitioner purportedly under an

agreement. The respondent No.1 deducted income tax at

source from the compensation paid to the petitioner. The

same appears to have been deducted on 23^rd October 2019.

On or about 8^th May 2020, a supplementary deed was

entered into between the petitioner and the respondent

under which some additional amount was paid to the

petitioner and income tax was deducted at source from the

said part of the compensation also. On or about 4^th

December 2020, the petitioner requested the respondent

No.1 to reverse the tax deducted at source on the ground

that no tax was deductable. On or about 24^th December

2020, the respondent No.1 replied to the petitioner that

exemption from income tax is not applicable in case of the

land acquired from the petitioner and in any case, the

income tax deducted at source from the petitioner was duly

deposited with the Income Tax Department.

4.

The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that

Section 96 read with Section 46 of the Right to Fair

Gaikwad RD

2/10

31.WPNo.10492021.doc

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Act, 2013”) specifcally exempts

payment of income tax on an amount of compensation paid

under the award and/or agreement.

5.

The learned Counsel submits that Section 46 of the

Act, 2013 is not applicable in the present matter as the land

is not purchased by a specifed person. The learned Counsel

submits that the respondent No.1 ought not to have

deducted the tax at source because the deduction of tax at

source is applicable only where the amount is taxable in the

hands of the recipient.

6.

The learned Counsel further submits that no

distinction is made between the compulsory acquisition

resorting to the provisions of the Act, 2013 by issuing

notifcation or by an acquisition through an agreement. The

learned Counsel to buttress his submission relied upon the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Balkrishnan

Versus Union of India¹. Further reliance is placed on the

judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Cour