The property of the petitioners were notified for the development activities of Seaport Airprt Road Phase II. The sale price was fixed by negotiation and the petitioners herein have agreed to hand over their property at the rate fixed during negotiation. The total sale consideration does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs. Therefore no tax is liable to be deducted either under Section 194 LA or under Section 194 IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. But the 2nd respondent/Special Thahsildar (LA) is insisting to deduct the income tax from the sale price payable to the petitioners at the rate of 10% and hence the writ petition.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax.
3. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in Thomas v. District Collector (2013 (3) KLT 941). In the said circumstance, respondents 1/District Collector and 2/Special Tahsildar (LA) are directed to disburse the amount due to the W.P.(C)Nos.34769, 35029 & 35058 OF 2014 2 petitioners in the light of the decision cited supra. It is made clear that, if the amount exceeds Rs.50 lakhs, necessary deduction shall be effected in terms of Section 194 IA by deducting 1% and depositing the same against the account of the 3rd respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax. It is for the petitioners to pursue further steps accordingly.
The petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps. The writ petitions are disposed of.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk