{"id":150815,"date":"2002-09-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-d-a-vs-dr-n-k-gupta-on-18-september-2002"},"modified":"2016-05-07T16:05:36","modified_gmt":"2016-05-07T10:35:36","slug":"g-d-a-vs-dr-n-k-gupta-on-18-september-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-d-a-vs-dr-n-k-gupta-on-18-september-2002","title":{"rendered":"G.D.A. vs Dr. N.K. Gupta on 18 September, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
National Consumer Disputes Redressal<\/div>\n
G.D.A. vs Dr. N.K. Gupta on 18 September, 2002<\/div>\n
  \n \n \n \n \n \n NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\nNATIONAL\nCONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION \n\n \n\nNEW DELHI \n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n \n\n REVISION PETITION No.2244 of 1999 \n\n \n\n(From the order dated 5.8.1999 & 8.9.99 in Ex. No.07\/SC\/97-98 the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh) \n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n \n\nG.D.A.    Petitioner \n\n \n\n  Vs \n\n \n\nDr. N.K. Gupta  Respondent <\/pre>\n
 BEFORE :\n<\/p>\n
 HONBLE
\nMR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, PRESIDENT <\/p>\n
 HONBLE
\nMR. JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA, MEMBER <\/p>\n
 MRS.\n<\/p>\n
RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER <\/p>\n
 MR.\n<\/p>\n
B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
Taxation – Deduction of TDS by GDA on the award of interest by way of compensation. Held – Section 194A of the Income-tax Act
\nnot applicable. Award of interest by way of
\ncompensation not interest as
\ndefined in Section 2(28A) of the Income-tax Act.\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
For the
\nPetitioner  :  Mr.
\nSudhi Kulshreshtra, Advocate <\/p>\n
For the Respondent  : N
\nE M O <\/p>\n
 Dated the 18th
\nSeptember, 2002 <\/p>\n
 \u00a0 <\/p>\n
 D.P.WADHWA, J. PRESIDENT <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
 Ghaziabad Development Authority (G.D.A.)
\nis aggrieved by the order dated 5.8.1999 of the U.P. State Consumer Disputes
\nRedressal Commission. By this order the State Commission in effect held that it
\nwas wrong on the part of the GDA to deduct TDS (Tax Deduction at Source) from the
\namounts payable to the Respondent\/Complainant. It was the case of the GDA that
\nwhile paying the interest amounting to Rs.46,711\/- as ordered by the State
\nCommission, in a complaint filed by the Respondent, it deducted Rs.8,656\/-
\ntowards TDS which amount it deposited
\nin the account of the Central Government. Certificate showing deduction of tax
\nand the deposit to this to the account
\nof the Central Government, have been filed. State Commission was, however, of
\nthe view that there
\nwas no order
\npassed by it to
\ndeduct the TDS
\nand when there
\nwas no such
\norder, no deduction
\ntowards TDS could have been made. State Commission,  <\/p>\n
therefore, directed that the amount which had been deducted
\nby the GDA towards the TDS be refunded to the Complainant with interest at the
\nrate of 18% p.a. <\/p>\n
 This
\norder of the State Commission has been challenged by the GDA on the ground that
\nit was a statutory duty imposed on it under Sec. 194-A of the Income Tax Act,
\n1961 to deduct the tax and when it has deposited the tax to the account of the
\nCentral Government and has also given a certificate for the tax so deducted to
\nthe Complainant, it could not be said that there was any deficiency in service
\non its part or it had contravened the order of the State Commission passed in
\nthe complaint filed by the Respondent\/Complainant. Basing reliance on the case of Rama Bai and Ors. Vs. Commissioner
\nof Income Tax, A.P., Hyderabad & Ors., reported as 1990 (Supp) SCC 699, ‘where interest was paid on an enhanced
\ncompensation and tax was deducted at source’, it was contended that it was
\nrightful on the part of the GDA to
\ndeduct the tax. In the present case, it
\nmay however, be noticed that Rama Bai’s case arose out of the interest paid
\nunder Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the enhanced
\ncompensation as awarded in a reference made under Sec.18 of that Act, and,
\nfurther appeal to the High Court and the Supreme Court, under the provisions of
\nthat very Act.\n<\/p>\n
 To
\nunderstand the controversy raised in the present case, it will be appropriate
\nat this stage to set out certain facts relevant of this case.\n<\/p>\n
 Complainant,
\nDr.N.K.Gupta, applied to the GDA for allotment of the plot of land in a scheme
\nknown as ‘Kaushambi Housing Scheme’. Dr. Gupta deposited a sum of Rs.35,010\/-
\nthrough a demand draft on 2.1.1986 with the GDA. However, GDA unilaterally
\nchanged the scheme in February, 1998 and instead of offering the plot, it
\noffered a self-built up house and flats to the aspirants of the plots. Dr.Gupta
\nsays he had no option, and therefore,
\nhe applied for a two-room flat with a plinth area of 912 sq. ft. for which he
\nwas told the cost was Rs.3,65,000\/-. Since Dr.Gupta had already applied for a
\nplot in the year 1985 and had paid Rs.35,010\/-, he was required to pay a
\nfurther sum of Rs.3,30,000\/-. This total amount was paid by him in five
\ninstalments. He also paid Rs.2,766\/- as
\ninterest at the rate of 18% p.a. as one of the instalments was delayed. Under
\nthe scheme, possession of the house was to be given within two years, i.e. by
\nthe end of February, 1990. GDA, however, did not give possession of the flat to
\nDr.Gupta. Rather it was on 15.11.11991 that revised price of the house in the
\nscheme was indicated by giving notice to all concerned. Complainant was
\ninformed that he was to pay a further sum of Rs.37,000\/-. However,
\nsubsequently, the total cost of the flat was reduced from Rs.4,02,000\/- to
\nRs.3,95,000\/-. Complainant states that when he visited the flat to obtain
\npossession on 3.6.1992, it was in the 10th floor. He found that
\nthere was no approach road to the
\nbuilding in which the flat was situated nor were any lifts installed therein
\nwhich could be used to reach his flat. Also, there was no electric connection
\nin the entire building, though it was advertised that ‘star infrastructural
\nfacilities’ would be available. The scheme was to provide facilities including
\nthe following infrastructural facilities:\n<\/p>\n
–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
purchase on
\ninstalments <\/p>\n
–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
two double lifts in
\neach block<\/p>\n
–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
telephone line in
\nevery flat<\/p>\n
–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
marble flooring in
\nbathroom\/kitchen and kota stone in all public areas<\/p>\n
–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
geyser connection in
\nall bathroom\/kitchen<\/p>\n
–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
independent water
\nsupply system<\/p>\n
–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
24 hours electricity
\nsupply<\/p>\n
–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
multi-channel antenna
\nwith two close circuit TV channels<\/p>\n
–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
provision for
\ncentralised air-conditioning in four room apartments<\/p>\n
–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
space for car
\nparking.\n<\/p>\n
And., Star infrastructural facilities, as <\/p>\n
–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
badminton court <\/p>\n
–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
medical aid<\/p>\n
–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
swimming pool<\/p>\n
–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
club<\/p>\n
–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
health club<\/p>\n
–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
community centre<\/p>\n
–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
primary school<\/p>\n
–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
security arrangements<\/p>\n
–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
indoor games and
\nchildren play area in each block.\n<\/p>\n
  Admittedly, the star infrastructural
\nfacilities were not available when the possession of the flat was offered to
\nDr.Gupta and also most of other facilities.\n<\/p>\n
  State Commission held that representation
\nby the public authority like the GDA to the intending purchasers that a scheme
\nunder which they were to purchase the flats contained a provision for certain
\nspecific facilities which were not provided and this failure squarely amounted
\nto deficiency in service on its part. State Commission held that the intending
\npurchasers were fully justified in refusing to make the additional amounts as
\ndemanded from them and also they were justified in refusing to take possession
\nof the property so allotted till all the facilities assured by the builder were
\nprovided. In such circumstances, the Complainant demanded refund of the amounts
\npaid by him with interest. He also demanded compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000\/- p.m. being the amount of rent he
\nwould have earned if the possession
\ncould have been given to him as planned. The State Commission considering the
\nwhole aspect of the matter and after appreciation of the evidence came to the
\nconclusion that the complaint of Dr. Gupta was fully justified and directed the
\nGDA to refund of the amount paid by the Complainant with interest at the rate
\nof 18% p.a. from the dates of various
\ndeposits of instalments till the date of payment. State Commission also awarded
\ncosts amounting to Rs.2,000\/-. State Commission further directed that the
\npayments shall be made within a month from the date of the order failing which
\nGDA shall be liable to pay further
\ninterest at 18% on the entire amount due from it from the due date of payment
\ntill the date of the actual payment to Dr.Gupta. This order of the State
\nCommission achieved finality and in terms thereof, the amount was to be paid to
\nthe Complainant. From the amount as calculated by way of interest in terms of
\nthis order, the GDA, as noticed above, deducted TDS which lead to the present
\ncontroversy.\n<\/p>\n
 Mr.\n<\/p>\n
Sudhir Kulshreshta, learned Counsel for
\nthe GDA referred to Section 194-A of
\nthe Income Tax Act to contend that it was
\nrequirement of law for GDA who is responsible for paying to the allottee
\nany income by way of interest shall, at the time of crediting of such income to
\nthe account of the allottee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by
\nissue of cheque or draft or by any other mode to deduct income tax thereon at
\nthe rates in force. This Section 194-A,
\nin relevant part, reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
 “194A.\n<\/p>\n
Interest other than “Interest on securities”\n<\/p>\n
(1)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\nAny person, not being
\nan individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying to a
\nresident any income by way of interest other than income (by way of interest on
\nsecurities), shall, at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time
\nof payment thereof in cash or by issue
\nof cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct
\nincome-tax thereon at the rates in force”.\n<\/p>\n
   Reference was also made to a decision of
\nthe Supreme Court in the case of Rama Bai and Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income
\nTax, A.P., Hyderabad & Ors., 1990 (Supp) SCC 699, wherein the question before the Supreme Court was regarding
\nthe point of time at which the interest payable under Sections 28 and 34 of the
\nLand Acquisition Act, 1894 accrues or arises, where such interest is payable on
\nenhanced compensation awarded on a reference under Section 18 of that Act or
\nfurther appeal to the High Court and\/or Supreme Court. It is not clear to us as
\nto how this judgment has any relevance to the issue before us. Perhaps,
\nargument is sought to be built is that where interest is paid under the
\naforesaid provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, TDS has to be deducted
\nunder Section 194A of the Income Tax Act. We do not think there can be any
\ndispute on this. Further, in Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act the
\nword ‘interest’ is specified. We may quote one of the Sections. Section 34
\nwhich reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
 “When the amount of such
\ncompensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the
\nland, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the
\nrate of six per centum per annum from the time of so taking possession until it
\nshall have been so paid or deposited”.\n<\/p>\n
  This section was considered in a decision
\nof the Supreme Court in the case of Dr.Shyamlal Narula Vs. Commissioner of
\nIncome Tax (1964) 53 ITR 151 (SC). The question before the Supreme Court was
\nwhether interest paid under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act was of the
\nnature of capital receipt or of revenue receipt. Of course, it was a revenue
\nreceipt. Sec.194-A of the Income Tax Act would be applicable. Supreme Court
\nsaid that Section 34 itself makes a distinction between amount awarded as
\ncompensation and the interest payable on the amount so awarded. The interest shall be paid on the amount
\nawarded from the time the Collector takes possession until the amount is paid
\nor deposited. There are two provisions in the Land Acquisition Act
\nwhereunder possession of the land is
\ntaken after making of the award and in the other, even before making the award.
\nIn either case, some time may lapse between the taking of the possession of the
\nacquired land by the Collector and the payment or deposit of the compensation
\nto a person interested in the land acquired. We may quote in extenso from the
\ndecision Supreme Court on the question of interest as appearing in Section 34
\nof the Land Acquisition Act. This is how the Supreme Court proceeds in the
\nmatter:\n<\/p>\n
 “As the land acquired
\nvests absolutely in the Government only after the Collector has taken possession of it, no interest
\ntherein will be outstanding in the claimant after the taking of such possession
\n: he is divested of his title to the land and hisw right to possession thereof,
\nand both of them vest thereafter in the Government. Thereafter he will be
\nentitled only to be paid compensation that has been or will be awarded to
\nhim. He will be entitled to
\ncompensation, though the ascertainment thereof may be postponed, from the date
\nhis title to the land and the right to possession thereof have been divested
\nand vested in the Government. It is as it were that from the date the
\nGovernment withheld the compensation amount which the claimant would be
\nentitled to under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, a statutory liability
\nhas been imposed upon the Collector of the Act. Therefore, a statutory liability has been imposed upon the
\nCollector to pay interest on the amount awarded from the time of his taking
\npossession until the amount is paid or deposited. This amount is not,
\ntherefore, compensation for the land acquired or for depriving the claimant of
\nhis right to possession, but is that paid to the claimant for the use of his
\nmoney by the State. In this view there cannot be any difference in the legal
\nposition between a case where possession has been taken before and that where possession has been taken after the
\naward, for in either case the title vests in the Government only after the
\npossession has been taken.\n<\/p>\n
  The Legislature expressly used the word
\n“interest” with its well known connotation under Section 34 of the
\nAct. It is, therefore, reasonable to give that expression the natural meaning
\nit bears. There is an illuminating exposition of the expression
\n“interest” by the House of Lords in Westminister Bank Ltd. Vs.
\nRiches. The question there was whether, wherein an action for recovery of any
\ndebt or damages the court exercises its discretionary power under a statute and
\norders that there shall be included in the sum for which the judgment is given
\ninterest on the debt or damages, the sum of interest so included is taxable
\nunder the Income Tax Acts. If the said amount was “interest of money”
\nwithin Schedule D and General Rule 21 of the All Schedules Rules of the Income
\nTax Act, 1918, income tax was payable thereon.
\nIn that context it was contended that money awarded as damages for the
\ndetention of money was not interest and had not the quality of interest. Lord
\nWright observed:\n<\/p>\n
 “The general idea is that he
\nis entitled to compensation for the deprivation. From that point of view it
\nwould seem immaterial whether the money was due to him under a contract express
\nor implied, or a statute, or whether the money was due for any other reason in
\nlaw. In either case the money was due to him and was not paid or, in other
\nwords, was withheld from him by the debtor after the time when payment should
\nhave been made, in breach of his legal rights, and interest was a compensation,
\nwhether the compensation was liquidated under an agreement or statute, as for instance under Section 57 of the
\nBills of Exchange Act, 1882, or was unliquidated and claimable under the
\nAct as in the present case. The
\nessential quality of the claim for compensation is the same, and the
\ncompensation is properly described as interest”.\n<\/p>\n
 This passage indicates that
\ninterest, whether it is statutory or contractual, represents the profit the creditor might have made if
\nhe had the use of the money or the loss he usffered because he had not that
\nuse. It is something in addition to the
\ncapital amount, though it arises out of it. Under Section 34 of the Act when the Legislature designedly used
\nthe word “interest” in contradistinction to the amount awarded, we do
\nnot see any reason why the expression should not be given the natural meaning
\nit bears.\n<\/p>\n
 The scheme of the Act and the
\nexpress provisions thereof establish that the statutory interest payable under
\nSection 34 is not compensation paid to the owner for depriving him of his right
\nto possession of the land acquired, but that given to him for the deprivation
\nof the use of the money representing the compensation for the land
\nacquired”. (Emphasis supplied) <\/p>\n
Finally, the Supreme
\nCourt observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
 “But in case where title
\npasses to the State, the statutory interest provided thereafter can only be
\nregarded either as representing the profit which the owner of the land might
\nhave made if he had the use of the money or the loss suffered because he had
\nnot that use. In no sense of the term can it be described as damages or
\ncompensation for the owner’s right to retain possession, for he has no right to
\nretain possession after possession was taken under Section 16 or Section 17 of
\nthe Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34
\nof the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount
\nand, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income-Tax
\nAct.”\n<\/p>\n
  Interest
\nhas been defined in sub-section (28A) and interest on securities under
\nsub-section (28B) of the Income Tax Act. These two sub-sections are reproduced
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
 “2(28A) “interest” means interest payable in any manner in
\nrespect of any moneys borrowed or debt incurred (including a deposit, claim or
\nother similar right or obligation) and includes any service fee or other charge
\nin respect of the moneys borrowed or debt incurred or in respect of any credit
\nfacility which has not been utilised”.\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
 “2(28B) “interest on securities” means.—\n<\/p>\n
(i)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\ninterest on any
\nsecurity of the Central Government or a State Government.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\nInterest on
\ndebentures or other securities for money issued by or on behalf of a local
\nauthority or a company or a corporation established by a Central, State or
\nProvincial Act.”\n<\/p>\n
  It would, therefore, appear to us that the
\nprovisions of the Land Acquisition Act where interest is payable under Sections
\n28 and 34 and tax is deducted at source
\nunder Section 194-A of the Income Tax Act would not apply in the present case
\nwhere GDA has been asked to pay interest on the amount refunded to the Complainant
\nbecause of its failure to construct the promised flat and to provide necessary
\nfacilities. The amounts which were paid to the GDA by the Complainant were not
\npaid by way of any deposit or GDA had not borrowed that money. And, as a matter
\nof fact, interest as defined in sub-section (28) of Section 2 of the Income Tax
\nAct is not that interest as was
\ndirected to be paid to the Complainant by the GDA. Interest to the Complainant
\n(here Dr.Gupta) has not been awarded on the basis of any deposit made by the Complainant
\nor GDA being the borrower of any money of the Complainant. Here interest
\npayment is by way of damages. Merely describing the damages as by way of
\ninterest do not make them as interest under the Income Tax Act.\n<\/p>\n
 A similar question arose before the Income
\nTax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Income
\nTax Officer (1995) Vol. 53 Income Tax Tribunal Decisions, page 90 and the
\nAppellate Tribunal held that amounts credited in the accounts of the allottees
\nwere not in the nature of interest within the meaning of Section 2(28A) of the Income Tax Act and the Appellate
\nTribunal quashed the orders of those
\nauthorities and directed that what is recovered by the DDA be refunded. The
\nAppellate Tribunal also hoped that DDA will be equally quick in paying back the
\namounts if recovered from the allottees. It appears to us that the revenue
\nauthorities did not challenge this order of the Appellant Tribunal by making
\nreference to the High Court under
\nSection 256 of the Income Tax Act. The
\nAppellate Tribunal held that the amounts paid\/credited to allottees by the DDA
\nunder SFS (Self Finance Scheme) did not fall under any category in Section
\n2(28A) of the Income Tax Act, but represented measure for quantifying
\ncompensation for delay in construction and handing over possession of dwelling
\nunit which was in nature of non-taxable capital income. In coming to this
\nconclusion the Appellate Tribunal relied on various judgments including that of
\nthe Supreme Court in the case of Dr.Shamlal Narula Vs. Commissioner of Income
\nTax.\n<\/p>\n
  It will be interesting to note that DDA
\nfiled a writ petition in the Delhi High Court arising out of the aforesaid
\njudgment of the Appellate Tribunal wherein it demanded interest with reference
\nto Sec.244(1A) and 244A of the Income Tax Act. This was on account of the
\nrevenue authorities not refunding the amounts in terms of the order of the
\nAppellate Tribunal. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court consisting of
\nHon’ble Mr. Justice R.C.Lahoti (as his Lordship then was) and Hon’ble Mr.
\nJustice J.K.Mehra, held in favour of the DDA that Sections 244 and 244A are
\napplicable and directed refund of the amount with interest in view of the order
\nof the Appellate Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
  The word interest used in the order of the
\nState Commission is not what interest is as defined in Section 2(28-A). There
\nin the order of the State Commission interest means compensation or damages for
\ndelay in construction of the house or handing over possession of the same
\ncausing consequential loss to the Complainant by way of escalation in the price
\nof the property and also on account of distress, disappointment faced by him.
\nInterest in the order has been used merely as a convenient method to calculate
\nthe amount of compensation in order to standardise it. Otherwise, each case of
\nthe allottee will have to be dealt with differently. Nomenclature does not
\ndecide the issue.\n<\/p>\n
   In our
\nview, therefore, considering the definition
\nof ‘interest’ as
\ncontained in Section
\n2(28-A) of the Income Tax
\nAct, provisions of Section 194-A were
\nnot applicable and the GDA was clearly wrong in deducting the TDS from the
\ninterest payable to the Complainant.\n<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the order of the State Commission is upheld and this
\nRevision Petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
.J.\n<\/p>\n
 (
\nD.P. WADHWA ) <\/p>\n
 PRESIDENT <\/p>\n
.J.\n<\/p>\n
 (
\nJ.K. MEHRA ) <\/p>\n
  MEMBER <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
 (
\nRAJYALASHMI RAO ) <\/p>\n
 MEMBER <\/p>\n
 (
\nB.K. TAIMNI ) <\/p>\n
 MEMBER <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
National Consumer Disputes Redressal G.D.A. vs Dr. N.K. Gupta on 18 September, 2002 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI \u00a0 REVISION PETITION No.2244 of 1999 (From the order dated 5.8.1999 & 8.9.99 in Ex. No.07\/SC\/97-98 the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh) \u00a0 G.D.A. Petitioner Vs Dr. N.K. Gupta Respondent BEFORE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-150815","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nG.D.A. vs Dr. N.K. Gupta on 18 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-d-a-vs-dr-n-k-gupta-on-18-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G.D.A. vs Dr. N.K. Gupta on 18 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-d-a-vs-dr-n-k-gupta-on-18-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-07T10:35:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-d-a-vs-dr-n-k-gupta-on-18-september-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-d-a-vs-dr-n-k-gupta-on-18-september-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G.D.A. vs Dr. N.K. Gupta on 18 September, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-07T10:35:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-d-a-vs-dr-n-k-gupta-on-18-september-2002\"},\"wordCount\":3666,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-d-a-vs-dr-n-k-gupta-on-18-september-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-d-a-vs-dr-n-k-gupta-on-18-september-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-d-a-vs-dr-n-k-gupta-on-18-september-2002\",\"name\":\"G.D.A. vs Dr. N.K. Gupta on 18 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-07T10:35:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-d-a-vs-dr-n-k-gupta-on-18-september-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-d-a-vs-dr-n-k-gupta-on-18-september-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-d-a-vs-dr-n-k-gupta-on-18-september-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G.D.A. vs Dr. N.K. Gupta on 18 September, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"G.D.A. vs Dr. N.K. Gupta on 18 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-d-a-vs-dr-n-k-gupta-on-18-september-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G.D.A. vs Dr. N.K. Gupta on 18 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-d-a-vs-dr-n-k-gupta-on-18-september-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-07T10:35:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-d-a-vs-dr-n-k-gupta-on-18-september-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-d-a-vs-dr-n-k-gupta-on-18-september-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G.D.A. vs Dr. N.K. Gupta on 18 September, 2002","datePublished":"2002-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-07T10:35:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-d-a-vs-dr-n-k-gupta-on-18-september-2002"},"wordCount":3666,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-d-a-vs-dr-n-k-gupta-on-18-september-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-d-a-vs-dr-n-k-gupta-on-18-september-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-d-a-vs-dr-n-k-gupta-on-18-september-2002","name":"G.D.A. vs Dr. N.K. Gupta on 18 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-07T10:35:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-d-a-vs-dr-n-k-gupta-on-18-september-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-d-a-vs-dr-n-k-gupta-on-18-september-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-d-a-vs-dr-n-k-gupta-on-18-september-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G.D.A. vs Dr. N.K. Gupta on 18 September, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150815","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=150815"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150815\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=150815"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=150815"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=150815"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}