ORDER : 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for following reliefs: a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the communication dtd 28.03.2018 bearing ref no. COF/TDS/Hedge & Golay/2138/2017-18 at annexure-a issued by the respondent no.2 and consequently direct the respondent no.2 to pay the balance compensation amount of Rs.1,36,86,042/-(rupees one crore thirty six lakhs eighty six thousand and forty two only) to the petitioner which is wrongfully withheld by respondent no.2 or in the alternative direct the respondent no.2 to give credit of the tax deducted at source amounting to Rs.1,36,86,042/-(rupees one crore thirty six lakhs eighty six thousand and forty two only) to the petitioner. b) Pass any other order and issue any other Writ or direction that this Hon’ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioner claims to be a lease cum sale agreement holder for 7 acres 1 gunta of land in Sy.Nos.81/1, 81/2A, 81/2B 82/4A and 82/2P situated at Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore Urban District. The said lease cum sale agreement has been executed by respondent No.3-KIADB in favour of the petitioner on 13.01.2014. One other survey number in Sy.No.82/4B(P) being omitted in the lease cum sale agreement, a rectification deed came to be executed on 10.12.2014. Both the lease cum sale agreement as well as rectification deed has been registered before the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar. 3. A portion of the property was sought to be acquired for the project of Bengaluru Metro established by the Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited under the provision of The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (KIADB Act). The final notification under Section 28(4) of KIADB Act came to be issued acquiring 13.40 sq.mtrs in Sy.No.81/1, 171.40 sq.mtrs in Sy.No.81/2B, 921.84 sq.mtrs in Sy.No.81/2A and 1049.82 sq.mtrs in Sy.No.8/1. Certain errors having been crept in the said errors were rectified in another final notification dated 16.06.2015. 4. The respondent No.1-Special Land Acquisition Officer has determined the compensation payable towards the above acquisition at Rs.13,68,60,419/-and made payment of the same to respondent No.3-KIADB on account of the fact that KIADB was shown as owner of the land being the lessor of the said property in favour of the petitioner. 5. 4. The respondent No.1-Special Land Acquisition Officer has determined the compensation payable towards the above acquisition at Rs.13,68,60,419/-and made payment of the same to respondent No.3-KIADB on account of the fact that KIADB was shown as owner of the land being the lessor of the said property in favour of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has at that time requested compensation amount be paid to respondent No.3-KIADB which is also made note of by respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 had directed payment of the said compensation to the petitioner vide order dated 23.03.2017 at Annexure – D to the petition in the event of the sale deed being executed in favour of the petitioner. 6. A sale deed came to be executed in respect of the aforesaid land on 06.07.2017 and registered in the jurisdictional Sub Registrar office on 10.07.2017. There being a mistake in the said sale deed a rectification deed came to be executed on 11.08.2017. 7. The petitioner contending that the petitioner’s land has been acquired would be entitled for the entire compensation of Rs.13,68,60,419/-as determined by respondent No.1 and laid a claim for the same, however, only an amount of Rs.12,31,74,377/-was paid by respondent No.3-KIADB to the petitioner on the ground that there is a TDS amount of Rs.1,36,86,042/-deducted by respondent No.1 in terms of Section 194-LA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which cannot be paid at that relevant point of time. 8. The petitioner having received an amount of Rs.12,31,74,377/-requested for the balance payment also to be made, however, the same was not made and by letter dated 28.03.2018, the respondent No.3 has stated that amount of Rs.1,36,86,042/-had been remitted to the department of the income tax on behalf of the KIADB and that if the department of income tax after assessment refunds the TDS amount to the KIADB, the Board may consider to reimburse the same at that point of time. 9. It is aggrieved by the said letter dated 23.08.2018, the petitioner is before this Court. 10. Sri.Vikram.G, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that 10.1. The compensation has been awarded by the respondent No.1-SLAO is on account of the acquisition of the land of the petitioner and as such the petitioner is entitled to receive the entire compensation amount of which the payment has been made to KIADB. 10.2. 10. Sri.Vikram.G, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that 10.1. The compensation has been awarded by the respondent No.1-SLAO is on account of the acquisition of the land of the petitioner and as such the petitioner is entitled to receive the entire compensation amount of which the payment has been made to KIADB. 10.2. The said payment was made as a stop gap arrangement inasmuch as at that point of time KIADB was shown as the owner, but however, the beneficial owner being the petitioner, a lease cum sale agreement having been executed and registered, the formalities of the sale deed being pending, the beneficial interest in the acquired land was that of the petitioner and as such the petitioner would be entitled for the entire amount awarded as compensation by respondent No.1-SLAO. 10.3. The deduction of tax at source has been made in terms of Section 194-LA of the Income Tax Act as regards payment made on account of compensation towards acquisition of land and as such, the amount deducted at source is also compensation and forms part of the said compensation which the petitioner would be entitled for. 10.4. By relying on Section 199 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, he submits that the tax deducted and remitted with the income tax department would form the income of the assessee on whose behalf the tax has been deducted and remitted. 10.5. In this case the assessee being the KIADB, the said amount after being remitted in its account would constitute the income of respondent No.3-KIADB it would tantamount to respondent No.3-KIADB having received the said amount remitted as TDS and on account of respondent No.3-KIADB having received this amount it was obligatory on the part of respondent No.3-KIADB to make payment of the said amount to the petitioner rather than only an amount of Rs.12,31,74,377/-. 10.6. The petitioner though has waited for a long period of time from the year 2018 when Annexure – A has been issued, the payment not having been made, the petitioner has been finally constrained to knock on the doors of this Court to receive the amount due to the petitioner. 10.7. In that background, he submitted that writ petition is required to be allowed and relief granted. 11. Per contra, Sri. Chaitanya, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents instructed by Sri. D. Boregowda, learned counsel submits that 11.1. 10.7. In that background, he submitted that writ petition is required to be allowed and relief granted. 11. Per contra, Sri. Chaitanya, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents instructed by Sri. D. Boregowda, learned counsel submits that 11.1. There is a dispute between the KIADB and the income tax department, inasmuch as KIADB is stated to be a charitable organization, which is exempt from payment of income tax. 11.2. Once KIADB is exempted from making payment of income tax, any amount which has been deducted and remitted into the account of KIADB as TDS or otherwise, would have to be refunded by the income tax department to the KIADB. 11.3. The KIADB has been filing nil returns and KIADB is not liable to make payment of any taxes. 11.4. Any amount deducted as tax and remitted into the account could only have been utilized for payment of taxes by KIADB. There being no taxes liable to be paid by KIADB, there is no adjustment of any TDS which can be made as regards to the amount which is not payable and as such the entire amount deducted and remitted as TDS or otherwise is liable to be refunded by the income tax department to the KIADB. 11.5. There are various litigations which are going on between the respondent No.3-KIADB and the income tax department inasmuch as on an earlier occasion when an appeal had been filed by the income tax department under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act challenging the order passed by the Tribunal holding that the proviso to subsection 15 of Section 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not applicable to the KIADB. This Court by its judgment dated 30.09.2020 has upheld the finding of the Tribunal thereby directing the Income Tax Department to refund the amount standing to the credit of the KIADB. The said matter is now pending on appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a Special Leave Petition filed by the Income Tax Department. 11.6. It is on the account of the income tax department having raised this issue as regards not refunding the tax deducted at source and claiming that the KIADB is required to make payment of taxes that the respondent No.3-KIADB has not been able to utilise the amounts though remitted to its credit and reflected in Form 26AS as regards respondent No.3-KIADB. 11.7. 11.7. Insofar as the relevant assessment year being 2017-2018, an appeal has been filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax in Form No.35 on 29.01.2020 challenging the order of not refunding the money dated 13.12.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer. 11.8. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, when respondent No.3-KIADB has not been able to utilize the funds which are remitted on its account in terms of Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the respondent No.3 were to make payment of the amount claimed by the petitioner, then respondent No.3 would be out of pocket and respondent No.3 being a charitable organization would be seriously affected by being out of pocket. 11.9. As soon as Income tax department were to refund the money the respondent No.3-KIADB would make payment of the money to the petitioner. 11.10. Respondent No.3 does not lay any claim on the said amount. He further goes on to submit that this Court could direct the income tax department to directly make payment of the amount to the petitioner so that interest of the petitioner would be safeguarded. 11.11. As on the date which compensation was paid by respondent No.1-SLAO and the amount deducted, it was respondent No.3-KIADB who was the owner of the property and as such, the tax which has been deducted is proper and correct and therefore, it is respondent No.3 who is entitled for the said credit. 12. Heard Sri.Vikram.G, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.K.K.Chaithanya, Senior counsel for Sri.D.Boregowda, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused papers. 13. Based on the averments made, the points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the amount deducted under Section 194-LA of the Income Tax Act and remitted to the account of the respondent would constitute the income of the respondent? 2. Whether the respondent can delay payment of the amounts due to the petitioner on the ground that there is a dispute pending between the respondent and the Income tax department? 3. What order? 14. I answer the above points as under: 15. ANSWER TO POINT NO.1: Whether the amount deducted under Section 194-LA of the Income tax Act and remitted to the account of the respondent would constitute the income of the respondent? 15.1. 3. What order? 14. I answer the above points as under: 15. ANSWER TO POINT NO.1: Whether the amount deducted under Section 194-LA of the Income tax Act and remitted to the account of the respondent would constitute the income of the respondent? 15.1. In the present case, the land belonging to the petitioner was acquired under the KIAD Act for BMRCL as a beneficiary, the acquisition being complete and award being passed, BMRCL having been called upon to remit the award, the BMRCL remitted the amount with the SLAO. Thus, insofar as BMRCL is concerned all that BMRCL was required to do was completed. 15.2. On receipt of the said amount, the SLAO paid the compensation amount to the KIADB since the KIADB continued to be the owner of the property though a lease cum sale agreement has already been entered into with the petitioner. The payment made to the KIADB was conditional inasmuch as the KIADB was directed to make payment of the amounts to the petitioner upon the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. 15.3. While making payment, the Tax was deducted at Source in terms of Section 199-LA and remitted to the tax account of the KIADB. 15.4. The provisions of Section 199 of the Income Tax Act is clear inasmuch as any amount deducted as tax and remitted to the Income tax department would form the income of the assessee on whose behalf tax has been deducted and remitted. Thus, for the purpose of calculation of income both the amount actually received and the amount remitted to the Income tax department after deduction at source would also amount to income of the assessee, in this case the assessee being KIADB. 15.5. The amount which has been remitted with the income tax department could be adjusted towards any income tax dues of the KIADB and in the event of amount remitted being more than any income tax dues, the assessee can claim for refund of that excess amount. Needless to say that if there is no income tax payable, then the entire amount which has been remitted could be sought for as refund by the assessee. 15.6. In view of the above, not only is the amount remitted as part of the income but the assessee could always seek for refund of the amounts if in excess of income tax dues. 15.6. In view of the above, not only is the amount remitted as part of the income but the assessee could always seek for refund of the amounts if in excess of income tax dues. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the amount though remitted to the income tax department, the amount stands to the credit of KIADB and as such, would form part of income of the KIADB. 16. ANSWER TO POINT NO.2: Whether the respondent can delay payment of the amounts due to the petitioner on the ground that there is a dispute pending between the respondent and the Income tax department? 16.1. As afore stated there is an obligation created on part of the KIADB to make payment of the amounts to the petitioner upon the execution of the sale deed since it is the petitioner who was entitled for said compensation amount. 16.2. This obligation was created at the very time when payment was made by SLAO to the KIADB and the KIADB was holding the money in trust for the petitioner. There being no separate entitlement of the KIADB for the said compensation amount, the property having virtually been transferred in favour of the petitioner. 16.3. The contention of Sri.Chaithanya, learned Senior counsel is that there being a dispute between the KIADB and Income tax department, the Income tax department has not refunded the amount, therefore the KIADB is unable to make payment of the amounts. am of the considered opinion that such a statement does not behove a statutory organisation like the KIADB, more so when it involves payment of compensation amount to a land loser. 16.4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was entitled to the entire compensation amount including the TDS amount. It is therefore, required of the KIADB to make payment of the entire amount. 16.5. Merely because there is a litigation between the KIADB and the Income tax department will neither absolve the liability of the KIADB nor delay the performance of the obligation by the KIADB. It is therefore, required of the KIADB to make payment of the entire amount. 16.5. Merely because there is a litigation between the KIADB and the Income tax department will neither absolve the liability of the KIADB nor delay the performance of the obligation by the KIADB. The KIADB being well aware of the litigation which is pending between itself and the Income Tax department when the compensation was paid by the SLAO to KIADB, the KIADB could have always instructed the SLAO to make payments of the amounts directly to the petitioner after the sale deed was executed instead of receiving the money and then taking up the contention that it would not be able to make payment of the TDS amount. 16.6. Whether the KIADB is required to make payment of taxes or not, whether it is charitable organisation or not cannot be a subject matter of this petition, that is to be decided by the Court seized of the matter where dispute between the KIADB and Income tax department is pending. 16.7. As and when KIADB were to receive the refund, the KIADB could always retain the said amount, until then it cannot be said that KIADB has no obligation to make payment of the TDS amounts to the petitioner. 16.8. The concept of ‘pay when paid’ has sought to be advocated by Sri.Chaithanya, learned Senior counsel, in my considered opinion would not be applicable since the obligation of KIADB to make payment of the monies started the moment sale deed came to be executed in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the KIADB cannot now take a contention that until the Income Tax Department were to refund the money, it would not make payment of the money on the ground that it would be out of pocket. 16.9. I am unable to accept the ‘out of pocket’ argument since the amount already stands to the credit of the KIADB and there would be no question of being ‘out of pocket’. If the KIADB is right in its submission, the amount standing to its credit will be refunded. If the KIADB is wrong in its submission, the amount standing to its credit will be appropriated for income tax dues. Thus, the concept of ‘pay when paid’ is alien to the transaction at hand and is unacceptable or sustainable. 16.10. If the KIADB is right in its submission, the amount standing to its credit will be refunded. If the KIADB is wrong in its submission, the amount standing to its credit will be appropriated for income tax dues. Thus, the concept of ‘pay when paid’ is alien to the transaction at hand and is unacceptable or sustainable. 16.10. Hence, I answer point No.2 by holding that the respondent KIADB cannot delay payment of the amounts due to the petitioner on the ground that there is a dispute pending between the respondent and the Income Tax Department. 17. POINT NO.3: What Order ? 17.1. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. 17.2. A certiorari is issued. The communication dated 28.03.2018 bearing ref No.COF/TDS/hedge & Golay/2138/2017 -18 Annexure-A issued by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed. 17.3. Respondent No.2 is directed to make payment of a sum of Rs.1,36,86,042/-to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 17.4. Respondents to act on a print out of the uploaded copy of this order on the website of this Court, if so furnished by the petitioner, without waiting for certified copy thereof. If respondents have any doubt about the order, respondents may verify the contents of the order from the website of this Court and or from the learned panel advocate appearing in the matter. The QR code on this order could also be scanned to view the website of the High Court to verify the order.