AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sharda Agarwal, J.
EA.386/1999.
By this application the judgment-debtor seeks adjustment of TDS 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 Income Tax Department that according to Section 194(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 all the receipts by the decree-holder were taxable. The receipts in the present case are for the use of the property and it is contended that the same are amenable to Section 194(1) of the Income Tax 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 the decree passed by the Court. He also contends that in any case, the mesne profits or interest accrued there upon cannot be included u/s 194(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The decree for possession and mesne profits in this case was passed in favor of the decree-holders and against the judgment-debtor vide judgment dated 15th December, 1998 by Hon''ble Mr. Justice S. K. Mahajan.
The submission of learned counsel for the decree-holder is that, this Court in fact has no jurisdiction to go behind 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 February, 1989 up to May, 1995 and with effect from 1st June, 1995 damages for use and occupation of the promises in suit were fixed @ 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 Hon''ble Mr. Justice Vijender 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.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the order dated 29th September, 1997 of Hon''ble Mr. 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 TDS is in fact a matter between judgment-debtor and the Income Tax Department. It would be open to the Income Tax Department at the time of making assessment for the relevant years to assess the receipts in the hinds of the decree-holder in accordance with law.
The application is, accordingly, dismissed.
Ex. 106/1999.
In view of the fact that the EA.386/1999 stands dismissed and the fact that learned counsel for the decree-holder states t hat decree has been satisfied, the execution petition stands disposed of.