The petitioners are before this Court seeking for a review, pointing out that the factual position with regard to the extent of amount payable to the 2nd petitioner, who is the wife of the 1st petitioner and a party to LIC No.169/2013 was unfortunately omitted to be brought up for consideration and incorporated in the judgment.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 & 2 and the learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the 1st petitioner herein is entitled to get the due amounts covered by LAC Nos. 170/13 & 165/13. In LAC No.170/13 the amount is nearly Rupees 18 lakhs whereas in LAC No.169/13 the amounts are payable to both the husband and the wife, wherein a sum of Rupees nearly 41 lakhs is earmarked to the husband ie; the 1st petitioner. If the amounts payable to the 1st petitioner in both the above LACs are taken together, it will exceed Rupees 50 R.P. No.679 of 2014 2 lakhs. As such, this Court does not propose to make any change with regard to the observations and directions given in the judgment dated 19.12.2013 as to the necessity to deduct 1% of the total amount towards 'TDS' in terms of Section 194 I.A. of the Income Tax Act, in so far the 1st petitioner is concerned. However, coming to the case of the 2nd petitioner ie, the wife, she is a party only to LAC No. 169/13 and her share is only to an extent of nearly Rupees 28 lakhs, which is well below Rupees 50 lakhs. If this be the position, no deduction was necessary.
In the above circumstances, if the deduction is still to be effected in the case of the 2nd petitioner, the entire amount payable to the 2nd petitioner shall be released to the 2nd petitioner. If deduction has already been made, pursuant to the judgment dated 19.12.2013, it is open for the 2nd petitioner to move the 3rd respondent for refund.
The review petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
Pn