TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 164
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,93,06,695/- from the petitioner bank. 2. The case of the petitioner is that M/s.Lakshmi Vilas Bank (LVB) was amalgamated with M/s.DBS Bank India Limited, through a scheme of amalgamation, on 27.11.2020. The property located at No.62, Cathedral Road, Madras 600 086, which belongs to the third respondent, the temple. Both LVB and subsequently the petitioner were tenants. A lease deed was originally executed on 16.07.1993 for three years, with a monthly rent of Rs. 33,430/-. Since then, no new lease deeds have been signed. After reviewing the records, the petitioner states that a notice dated 25.02.2018 was sent by the temple to LVB demanding payment of Rs. 60,57,788/- towards the arrears due for the branch office, as well as another Rs. 72,884/- for the arrears related to the ATM installation. LVB requested a fair rent assessment; however, additional demand notices were sent on 01.01.2019. 3. In the absence of any agreement regarding the arrears, the enhanced rent of Rs. 2,60,000/- was paid by LVB from 01.01.2019, and the re-fixation was made as Rs. 2,60,500/- effective from 01.07.2019. Subsequently, LVB merged with the petitioner. After holding discussions and reviewing the recor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... referencing a letter issued by the Income Tax Department dated 25.11.1994, which exempted the religious institution from registration under Section 12(A) of the IT Act. Nevertheless, the petitioner continued to deduct TDS, resulting in a legal notice dated 29.08.2005 being issued to the petitioner. Subsequently, by applying G.O.Ms.No.353 dated 04.06.1999, a 33.3% increase was applied on 18.10.2007, and the rent was fixed at Rs. 93,364/- effective from 01.11.2004. On 04.11.2013, yet another demand notice was raised, applying 15% interest as per G.O.Ms.No.456 dated 05.04.2013. 7. It was also acknowledged by the petitioner's bank in their letter dated 26.12.2013. Thereafter, by an order dated 23.03.2017, the rents were again revised to the amount of Rs. 2,60,500/- retrospectively, effective from 01.07.2016, which revised rents were agreed to be paid by the petitioner following the demand notice dated 25.02.2018. However, the petitioner sought to implement the said revised rent effective from 01.01.2019. Subsequently, the third respondent has been requesting the petitioner to pay the arrears through repeated communications. In a letter dated 23.03.2021, the petitioner admitted th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;ble Division Bench of this Court in K.S.Raji Vs. Commissioner (WA.(MD).No.503 of 2022) has read the principles of natural justice into Section 34(A) of the Act. 13. The contention of the temple that, even otherwise, it is entitled to a fixed increase of 15% is incorrect in law, since the statutory scheme prescribed under Section 34(A) of the Act cannot be deemed to be replaced by the Government orders. 14. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the temple is registered under Section 12(A) of the Income Tax Act; therefore, the temple's contention that no TDS is deductible is untenable. The petitioner was required by law to deduct and remit TDS. Since no valid certificate under Section 197 or Section 197(A) of the Income Tax Act was ever produced, the third respondent could always approach the authority by filing a return to seek a refund of the said amount. As the principles of natural justice are violated and the third respondent has also unjustly appropriated the sum of Rs. 72,73,402/- without service of any orders on the due dates under Section 34(A) of the Act, the Writ Petition is maintainable. Referring to the filed calculation, the learned Senior Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt temple argues that TDS should not have been deducted, it is evident that the third respondent temple is registered under the Act. For some of the assessment years, it has even filed assessments claiming a refund of the TDS amount. In view thereof, it cannot be said that the petitioner was in error in deducting the TDS amount. No steps at the relevant point of time was taken by the third respondent temple to establish that the TDS need not be deducted. Therefore, in this case, the TDS amount cannot be claimed as arrears. It would be open for the Temple to file appropriate proceedings and seek a refund from the Income Tax Department in the manner known to law. 20. The second contention concerns the entertaining of the Writ Petition. It is true that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal. However, it must be noted that the petitioner vacated the premises and handed over possession as of 16.11.2023, and even according to the counter affidavit, the orders increasing the fair rent for the year 2019 and for the year 2022 were passed only on 24.01.2024. This position has since been settled by this Court in M.Gurusamy Nadar Vs. The Commissioner and others, in CRP.(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le to contend that no increase at all should be made till even while pleading to entertain the writ petition with a pragmatic approach. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in the best interest of resolving the dispute between the parties, I am of the view that a reasonable 15% increase shall be taken and calculated and I reject the submissions made to the contrary. It would be fair and equitable considering the overall facts and circumstances. 24. In this case, it can be seen that, according to the tabular column provided in paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit, there was no dispute between the parties until the year 2016. When the rent was last revised, effective from 01.07.2013, to Rs. 1,08,059/-, it was agreed upon by the petitioner through its communication dated 26.12.2013. Therefore, the next revision was due on 01.07.2016. However, the revision was only made on 25.02.2018. By calculating 15% increase from July, 2016 upto February, 2018, the monthly rent would be - 108059 * 15/100 = Rs. 1,24,268/-. 25. The order for enhancement to Rs. 2,60,000/- was communicated to the petitioner on 25.02.2018. Therefore, the same is effective from the month of M....