JUDGMENT : M.S. SONAK, J. 1. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioners contend that the deduction of TDS by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“MCGM”) on the total monetary compensation amount payable to the Petitioners for acquisition of the Petitioners’ property under the right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. (“Acquisition Act of 2013”), is arbitrary and ultra vires. 4. The 1st Petitioner was the owner of the property measuring 9302.7 sq. mtrs. situated at village Poisar, Kandivali, bearing CTS No. 809/A/1/19A/1/1/1C/2 (“the said property”). Under the Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2034 (“the DCPR 2034”), the said property was reserved for the public purpose of setting up a Cemetery (RSK 4.8) in terms of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“the MRTP Act”). Incidentally, under the previous Development Plan of 1991 (“DCR 1991”) the said property was also reserved for a cemetery. 5. The MCGM, which had reserved the said property under the above DCRs, proposed to acquire it by issuing a public notice dated 14 September 2021 in two newspapers. The MCGM offered to pay monetary compensation for the acquisition. After negotiating the matter with the Petitioners, the MCGM decided to acquire the said property under the Acquisition Act of 2013. This was preceded by an exhaustive Title Investigation Report dated 29 September 2021. On 4 November 2022, the MCGM took over possession of the said property from the Petitioners and even issued a possession receipt of the said date. 6. A registered Transfer Deed dated 12 January 2023 was entered into between the Petitioners and the MCGM, and the said property was transferred to the MCGM. This deed records that the MCGM would pay compensation of Rs.99,19,50,752/- to the first Petitioner upon the MCGM’s name being entered into the record of rights in substitution for the name of the first Petitioner. 7. The Petitioners have relied upon an E-mail dated 15 February 2023 addressed by the MCGM to the first Petitioner offering to pay the entire amount of Rs.99,19,50,752/- to the first Petitioner. Mr. 7. The Petitioners have relied upon an E-mail dated 15 February 2023 addressed by the MCGM to the first Petitioner offering to pay the entire amount of Rs.99,19,50,752/- to the first Petitioner. Mr. Dubhash pointed out that this E-mail, which was styled as a “Purchase Order” at Page 97 shows that “Nil Tax” was levied on the transaction, and the total Purchase Order value was Rs.99,19,50,752/-. 8. The Petitioners have pleaded that on 15 February 2023, the Petitioners received payment advice of even date from the MCGM after deducting a sum of Rs.9,91,95,076/- by the MCGM as TDS from the total monetary compensation of Rs.99,19,50,752/- otherwise payable to the Petitioners. Thus, only Rs.89,27,55,676/- was transferred by RTGS into the 1st Petitioner’s bank account towards the total monetary compensation for acquiring the said property owned and held by the 1st Petitioner. 9. The Petitioners protested against the above deduction of Rs.9,91,95,076/- from out of the total compensation payable to the Petitioners. The Petitioners were, however, informed that the MCGM deposited the deducted amount with the Income Tax Department, and further, since the same amount was already adjusted by the Department against some earlier demands against the Petitioners, nothing further could be done in the matter. Hence the present Petition. 10. Mr. Dubhash, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that the Petitioners would be satisfied if this Court grants the alternate relief in terms of prayer clause A(ii). This relief reads as follows: “(A)(ii) in the alternative to (i) above, direct the Respondent Corporation to file a correction statement as provided under the proviso to section 200(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 within a period of 30 days, for deletion of information pertaining to the Petitioners in the previous statement filed and pay the said amount of Rs.9,91,95,076/- (Rupees nine crores ninety-one lakhs ninety-five thousand and seventy-six only) to the Petitioners.” 11. Mr. Dubhash submitted that the acquisition in the present case was essentially under the provisions of the MRTP Act, the BMC Act and the Acquisition Act of 2013. He submitted that the Acquisition Act of 2013 specifically recognises acquisition through negotiation followed by an agreement. He submitted that merely because the compensation amount was agreed upon does not change the character of acquisition from that of compulsory acquisition to a voluntary sale. He relied upon the judgments in Balakrishnan Vs. He submitted that the Acquisition Act of 2013 specifically recognises acquisition through negotiation followed by an agreement. He submitted that merely because the compensation amount was agreed upon does not change the character of acquisition from that of compulsory acquisition to a voluntary sale. He relied upon the judgments in Balakrishnan Vs. Union of India and Others, (2017) 3 SCC 634 and Viswanathan Vs. Chief Commissioner, 2020 SCC Online Ker 25948 to support this proposition. 12. Mr. Dubhash submitted that even the Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT”) under Circular No. 36 of 2016 dated 25 October 2016 had clarified the position that the compensation received in respect of an award or agreement, which has been exempted from Income Tax levy vide Section 96 of the Acquisition Act of 2013, shall also not be taxable under the provisions of the IT Act. 13. Mr. Dubhash submitted that the main issue in this Petition has already been resolved by the decision of this Court in the case of Seema Jagdish Patil vs. National High-Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. and Others, 2022 SCC Online Bom 1174 : 2022 445 ITR 382 : (2022) 327 CTR 281 : (2022) 4 AIR Bom R 725. He submitted that the relief now pressed on behalf of the Petitioners is similar to the relief granted to the Petitioners in Seema Jagdish Patil (supra). 14. For all the above reasons, Mr. Dubhash submitted that the alternate relief regarding prayer clause A(ii) may be granted. 15. Ms Dhuri learned counsel for the Respondent-MCGM, submitted that the MCGM had bona fide deducted the tax at source (TDS) from the compensation amount payable to the Petitioners. She submitted that this amount was duly remitted to the Income Tax Department upon deduction. She submitted that in case the Petitioners had any issue with the Income Tax Department, they could take up such issue with the Income Tax Department independently without involving the MCGM. 16. For the above reasons, Ms. Dhuri submitted that no reliefs may be granted to the Petitioners in the present Petition. 17. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 18. The Petitioners and the MCGM are in agreement regarding the factual aspects of the acquisition of the said property. 16. For the above reasons, Ms. Dhuri submitted that no reliefs may be granted to the Petitioners in the present Petition. 17. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 18. The Petitioners and the MCGM are in agreement regarding the factual aspects of the acquisition of the said property. Admittedly, the said property was reserved by the MCGM under the MRTP Act, DCR 1991 and DCPR 2034 referred to above for the public purpose of setting up a cemetery (RSK 4.8). The MCGM initiated proceedings to acquire the said property by issuing a public notice dated 14 September 2021. Since under the provisions of the Acquisition Act of 2013, the acquisition through negotiation and agreement was one of the permissible modes, the MCGM and the Petitioners entered into negotiations for the transfer of the said property pursuant to the initiation of the acquisition proceedings and the reservation. This culminated in the execution of a registered Transfer Deed dated 12 January 2023, in terms of which the MCGM agreed to pay the Petitioners a sum of Rs.99,19,50,752/- as compensation towards the acquisition of the said property. 19. However, the MCGM, instead of paying the above entire amount, paid the Petitioners only Rs.89,27,55,676/- after deducting Rs.9,91,95,076/- from the total monetary compensation agreed to be paid to the Petitioners. This amount was deducted towards TDS and remitted by the MCGM to the Income Tax Department. 20. The Petitioners, therefore, contend that the MCGM’s action of deducting Rs.9,91,95,076/- from the total compensation of Rs.99,19,50,752/- payable to the Petitioners was ultra vires the provisions of the Acquisition Act of 2013. They rely upon Section 96 of the Acquisition Act 2013 and CBDT Circular No. 36 of 2016, dated 25 October 2016, to support their contention. 21. The issue now raised by the Petitioners arose and was considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Seema Jagdish Patil (supra). In the said case, the Petitioner’s land was acquired through direct purchase and private negotiations by the government to implement the project. Mumbai-Ahmedabad Hi-Speed Rail Project. The purchase price was agreed upon by negotiations, but the public limited company, for whose benefit the government acquired the land, deducted 10% of the compensation amount towards TDS. This was challenged as ultra vires Section 96 of the Acquisition Act 2013. 22. Mumbai-Ahmedabad Hi-Speed Rail Project. The purchase price was agreed upon by negotiations, but the public limited company, for whose benefit the government acquired the land, deducted 10% of the compensation amount towards TDS. This was challenged as ultra vires Section 96 of the Acquisition Act 2013. 22. The argument in support of the deduction of 10% towards TDS was that the character of the acquisition was not compulsory but a voluntary sale. It was contended that the TDS must be deducted from the consideration payable towards a voluntary sale. Therefore, there was no infirmity in deducting 10% of the amount towards TDS. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, relying upon the decision in Balkrishnan’s case (supra), did not accept the above contention and held that merely because the compensation amount was agreed upon would not change the character of the acquisition, which was essentially “compulsory.” 23. The Coordinate Bench also relied upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in Viswanathan’s case (supra), in which it was held that Section 96 of the Acquisition Act of 2013 leaves no doubt that if the land either acquired through the process of an Award or as a result of negotiation and agreement, would still retain its character of compulsory acquisition. Accordingly, no tax could be levied on the compensation for such acquisition. 24. The Central Board of Direct Taxes under Circular No. 36 of 2016 dated 25th October 2016 also has clarified that “the board has examined the matter, and it is hereafter clarified that compensation received in respect of award or agreement which has been exempted from levy of income tax vide Section 96 of the Act, 2013 shall also not be taxable under the provisions of the IT Act.” It also recognises acquisition by award or agreement. Section 96 of the Act 2013 unequivocally provides that no income tax or duty shall be levied on any award or agreement made under the Act except under Section 46. Section 46 would not be attracted in the present case. Section 46 would apply to the specified persons. The specified persons include any person other than (i) the Appropriate Government, (ii) a Government Company, (iii) an Association of persons or Trust or Society as registered under the Societies Registration Act, wholly or partially aided by the appropriate Government or controlled by the Appropriate Government. Section 46 would apply to the specified persons. The specified persons include any person other than (i) the Appropriate Government, (ii) a Government Company, (iii) an Association of persons or Trust or Society as registered under the Societies Registration Act, wholly or partially aided by the appropriate Government or controlled by the Appropriate Government. In view of that, as the exemption under Section 96 would squarely apply, no income tax can be levied in the present matter for the amount of compensation; inter alia, the MCGM could not have deducted the amount of TDS from the amount of compensation paid to the petitioner. 25. Section 96 of the Acquisition Act of 2013 reads as follows: “96. Exemption from income-tax, stamp duty and fees - No income tax or stamp duty shall be levied on any award or agreement made under this Act, except under section 46 and no person claiming under any such award or agreement shall be liable to pay any fee for a copy of the same.” 26. From the above, it is quite clear that no tax can be claimed on the compensation paid to a land owner for acquiring his property under the Acquisition Act of 2013, whether such acquisition was through an award or an agreement made under the Act. As noted earlier, merely because this compensation amount was determined through negotiation or agreement does not mean that the character of the acquisition was either not compulsory or that this was not an acquisition under the Acquisition Act of 2013. Section 96 provides that no award or agreement made under the Acquisition Act of 2013 will be chargeable with income tax or stamp duty except under clause 46. Further, a person claiming under any such award or agreement is not required to pay any fee for a copy of such award of agreement.” 27. Section 96 provides that no award or agreement made under the Acquisition Act of 2013 will be chargeable with income tax or stamp duty except under clause 46. Further, a person claiming under any such award or agreement is not required to pay any fee for a copy of such award of agreement.” 27. Thus, considering the provisions of Section 96 of the Acquisition Act of 2013, the Central Board of Direct Taxes under Circular No. 36 of 2016 dated 25th October 2016, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balkrishnan (supra), the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Viswanathan (supra) and the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Seema Jagdish Patil (supra), we declare that the deduction of an amount of Rs.9,91,95,076 towards TDS by the MCGM was not legal or proper. However, despite such a declaration, at least in this case, we do not propose to direct the MCGM to pay this amount to the Petitioners but follow the course adopted by the Coordinate Bench in Seema Jagdish Patil (Supra). Even Mr. Dubhash, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, pressed for the alternate relief in terms of prayer clause (A)(ii) quoted above. 28. This relief is predicated inter-alia on the proviso to Section 200(3) of the Income Tax Act. Section 200(3) of the Income Tax Act reads as follows: “Duty of person deducting tax: 200. (1)............ (2)............ Even Mr. Dubhash, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, pressed for the alternate relief in terms of prayer clause (A)(ii) quoted above. 28. This relief is predicated inter-alia on the proviso to Section 200(3) of the Income Tax Act. Section 200(3) of the Income Tax Act reads as follows: “Duty of person deducting tax: 200. (1)............ (2)............ (3) Any person deducing any sum on or after the 1st day of April, 2005 in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Chapter or, as the case may be, any person being an employer referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192 shall, after paying the tax deducted to the credit of the Central Government within the prescribed time [prepare such statements for such period as may be prescribed] and deliver or cause to be delivered to the prescribed income-tax authority or the person authorised by such authority such statement in such form and verified in such manner and setting forth such particulars and within such time as may be prescribed]: Provided that the person may also deliver to the prescribed authority a corrections statement for rectification of any mistake or to add, delete or update the information furnished in the statement delivered under this Sub-Section in such form and verified in such manner as may be specified by the authority.” 29. Thus, any person deducting any sum on or after the 1st April 2005 in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII has to prepare a statement and deliver or cause to be delivered to the prescribed income-tax authority or the person authorised by such authority such statement in such form and verified in such manner and setting forth such particulars and within such time as may be prescribed. The proviso to Section 200(3) provides that the person may also deliver to the prescribed authority a correction statement for rectification of any mistake or to add, delete or update the information furnished in the statement delivered under this sub-section in such form and verified in such manner as may be specified by the authority. 30. The Petitioners, therefore, now seek a direction to the MCGM to file a correction statement as provided under the Proviso to Section 200(3) of the Income Tax Act to delete the information pertaining to the previous statement filed and pay the Petitioners the deducted amount of Rs.9,91,95,076/-. 30. The Petitioners, therefore, now seek a direction to the MCGM to file a correction statement as provided under the Proviso to Section 200(3) of the Income Tax Act to delete the information pertaining to the previous statement filed and pay the Petitioners the deducted amount of Rs.9,91,95,076/-. The relief in terms of prayer clause A(ii) cannot be granted in its entirety as prayed for. The same will have to be suitably moulded because we are satisfied that even in this case, the Petitioners should be granted relief similar to that granted to the Petitioner in Seema Jagdish Patil (supra). 31. In Seema Jagdish Patil (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court, in almost identical facts, directed the Respondent, which had deducted the TDS, to file a correction statement as provided under the Proviso to Section 200(3) of the Income Tax Act within a month to the effect that the TDS deducted was not liable to be deducted. After that, the Income Tax Department was directed to process the statement, including the correction statement filed under Section 200A, more particularly Clause (d) thereof. The parties were then given the liberty to take steps for a refund of the mistakenly deducted amount or TDS in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act and Rules. The same relief could now be granted to the Petitioners. 32. Accordingly, the Rule is made absolute in this Petition by directing the Respondent-MCGM to file a correction statement as provided under the Proviso to Sub-Section (3) of Section 200 of the Income Tax Act regarding the remission of the amount of Rs.9,91,95,076/- to the Income Tax Department within a period of thirty days from today. This correction statement shall be to the effect that this amount deducted by the MCGM was not liable to be deducted, given the provisions of Section 96 of the Acquisition Act of 2013. Further, The Income Tax Department (Respondent Nos. 3 and 4) are directed to process the MCGM’s correction statement in accordance with the law and issue necessary intimation to the Petitioners and the MCGM. The Petitioners and the MCGM are granted liberty to take steps to refund Rs.9,91,95,076/- in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act and Rules made thereunder. 33. This Petition is disposed of in the above terms without any cost order. 34. The Petitioners and the MCGM are granted liberty to take steps to refund Rs.9,91,95,076/- in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act and Rules made thereunder. 33. This Petition is disposed of in the above terms without any cost order. 34. All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.