KOTTAPPALAKKUDATH KHADEEJA Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER 's property was acquired and an award was passed on 24th Nov., 1999, fixing the compensation at Rs. 3,85,468. As per Section 194L of the IT Act, 10 per cent of the above compensation amount should have been withheld by the land acquisition authority towards income -tax and only the rest of the amount should have been disbursed. By inadvertence, the entire compensation amount had been disbursed to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer issued Ext. P1 notice dt. 12th Aug., 2003 directing refund of 10 per cent of the amount and also surcharge on the above amount. The above notice issued by the Land Acquisition Officer is under challenge at the instance of the petitioner.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned standing counsel for the IT Department.

(3.) SEC . 194L was in the IT Act for a period from 1st June, 1999 till 1st June, 2000. In view of the proviso added to Section 194L, no deduction need be made from, the amount w.e.f. 1st June, 2000. Admittedly, no amount was withheld in pursuance to the above provision the entire amount was disbursed. When the notice was issued for return of the amount, in view of the proviso which has come into effect from 1st June, 2000, the amount need not be recovered also. In view of the above provision, I do not think that it would be competent for the Land Acquisition Officer to demand return of the amount already disbursed. But it would be the option of the IT Department to recover the amount towards income -tax or not. Hence, I think it just and proper to quash Ext. P1 notice reserving the right of the IT Department to proceed against the petitioner if they choose to do so.