High Court Of Delhi
Mrs. Kanti Singh & Ors. vs. Project & Equipment Corporation Of India Ltd.
Section 194-I
Ms. Sharda Aggarwal, J.
E.A. No. 386 of 1999 & Ex. No. 106 of 1999
21st December, 2000
Counsel Appeared : Amit S. Chadha, for the Decree-holder : A.K. Mata with S.K. Das, for the Judgment-debtor
JUDGMENT
MS. SHARDA AGGARWAL, J. :
By this application the judgment-debtor seeks adjustment of tax deducted at source from the decretal amount. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is contended by learned counsel for the judgment-debtor and that of the IT Department that according to s. 194-I of the IT Act, 1961, all the receipts by the decree holder were taxable. Thereceipts in the present case are for the use of the property and it is contended that the same are amenable to s. 194-I of the IT Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for the decree holder has contended that in the execution petition the decree holder is seeking relief in pursuance of a decree passed by the Court. He also contends that in any case, the mesne profits or interest accrued thereupon cannot be included under s. 194-I of the IT Act.
2. The decree for possession and mesne profits in this case was passed in favour of the decree holders and against the judgment-debtor vide judgment dt. 15th Dec., 1998, by Justice S. K. Mahajan.
3. The submission of learned counsel for the decree holder is that, this Court in fact has no jurisdiction to gobehind the decree. It is also pointed out that damages which have been awarded to the decree holder under the decree are for use and occupation of the property for the period 26th Feb., 1989, up to May, 1995, and w.e.f. 1st June, 1995, damages for use and occupation of the premises in suit were fixed at Rs. 50 per sq. ft. per month till the vacation of the premises. Learned counsel for the decree holder has also referred to an order of Mr. JusticeVijender Jain in another execution application in another suit against the same judgment debtor for premises adjacent to the premises in question on the same point.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the order dt. 29th Sept., 1997, of Justice Vijender Jain I am of the considered view that this Court has no jurisdiction to decide this issue, as in execution proceedings the Court cannot go behind the decree. Deduction of tax deducted at source is in fact a matter between the judgment debtor and the IT Department. It would be open to the IT Department at the time of making assessment for the relevant years to assess the receipts in the hands of the decree holder in accordance with law. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. Ex. No. 106 of 1999 : In view of the fact that the E A. No. 386 of 1999 stands dismissed and the fact that learned counsel for the decree holder states that the decree has been satisfied, the execution petition stands disposed of.
[Citation : 255 ITR 256]
