TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 1,53,938/as interest of the claimant for accounting year of 2008 and consequently it deducted ₹ 15,793/, from the amount payable to the claimant and deposit it with the Income Tax Department. The above discussion has also brought out the fact that in entire transaction there is no fault of the claimant and therefore claimant cannot be penalised for action and mistake of the Insurance Company. The poor workman, who is not even assessee and whose income at the relevant time was not taxable, cannot be made to undergo entire process of filing return and reclaim the amount. Therefore, there is no justification to interfere with and disturb the order passed by the Commissioner. The learned Commissioner has passed the impugned order after taking into account the direction and guidelines issued by Division Bench of this Court in Hansagauri Prafulchandra Ladhani and ors v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and ors, (2006 (10) TMI 383 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) and, therefore also there is no justification to interfere with the said direction. Under the circumstances, the petition should fail and should be rejected. The petition is not accepted for the reasons mentioned a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, Labour Court, Kachchh at Bhuj on 23.9.2008 in favour of the original claimant respondent no.1 herein (AnneF); 4. The petitioner insurance company is aggrieved by the order directing it to pay/deposit ₹ 15,793/which amount it had deducted towards TDS from the amount payable and paid to the original claimant so as to comply the award dated 21.02.2008 passed by the Commissioner in Claim Application filed by the claimant. 5. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged that the original claimant Mr. Falaji Gopalji Vaghela @ Bhupatsinh had filed claim application before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. The said claimant filed the claim application against his employer i.e. present respondent No.2 Mr.Chhotabhai Ayar. The said claim application was registered as Compensation Application No.292 of 1996. The learned Commissioner adjudicated the said application and decided the same vide judgment dated 21.2.2008 and directed the employer and insurance company to pay ₹ 1,08,455/towards compensation with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of accident till the date of actual payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied under clause (a) or clause (b) of section 44AB during the financial year in which such interest is credited or paid, shall be liable to deduct income tax under this section] [Explanation.For the purposes of this section, where any income by way of interest as aforesaid is credited to any account whether called Interest payable account or Suspense account or by any other name, in the books of account of the person liable to pay such income, such crediting shall be deemed to be credit of such income to the account of the payee and the provisions of this section shall apply accordingly.] (2) Omitted by the Finance Act, w.e.f 1.6.1992] (3) The provisions of subsection (1) shall not Apply- [(i) where the amount of such income or, as the case may be, the aggregate of the amounts of such income credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid during the financial year by the person referred to in subsection (1) to the account of, or to, the payee, does not exceed j [two thousand five hundred rupees;] [Provided that in respect of the income credited or paid in respect of- (a) time deposits with a banking company to which the Banking Regulation A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of,- (a) deposits with a primary agricultural credit society or a primary credit society or a cooperative land mortgage bank or a cooperative land development bank; (b) deposits (other than time deposits made on or after the 1st day of July, 1995) with a cooperative society, other than a cooperative society or bank referred to in subclause (a), engaged in carrying on the business of banking;] (viii) to such income credited or paid by the Central Government under any provision of this Act or the Indian Incometax Act, 1922, or the Estate Duty Act, 1953, or the Wealthtax Act, 1957, or the Gifttax Act, 1958, or the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, or the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, or the Interesttax Act, 1974.] [(ix) to such income credited or paid by way of interest on the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal where the amount of such income or, as the case may be, the aggregate of the amounts of such income credited or paid during the financial year does not exceed fifty thousand rupees;] [(x) to such income which is paid or payable by an infrastructure capital company or infrastructure capital fund or a pub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stake of insurance Company why should the claimant undergo such procedure. On the said grounds learned advocate for claimant supported and justified the direction by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. 10. I have considered rival submissions and also considered material available on record. 11. Facts are not in dispute. 12. It has emerged from the record that in view of the direction passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner vide judgment dated 21.02.2008, the claimant was entitled for ₹ 1,08,455/towards compensation. 13. As per the said judgment, the Insurance Company was also liable to pay ₹ 1,53,938/towards interest. 14. Consequently, total amount payable to the claimant would be ₹ 2,63,393/. 14.1 However, Insurance Company deposited ₹ 2,46,600/after deducting, by way of TDS ₹ 15,793/. The said deduction gave rise to the subsequent application by the claimant wherein impugned order came to be passed. 15. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to take into account below quoted observation from the decision by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Hansagauri Prafulchandra Ladhani and ors v. Oriental Insu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to be deducted at source under Section 194/A(ix) shall be invested/ disbursed by the Tribunal. III. It was further directed that when the claimants make applications/ representations before the authority under the IncomeTax Act, 1961 for refund of the amount deducted under the provisions of Section 194/A(ix) of the Act, the concerned Authority shall decide such applications/ representations within six months from the date of receipt of the applications/ representations. 6. It was, therefore, directed that in the facts and the circumstances of this case, since the Insurance Company had deducted tax on compensation under Section 194(3)(ix) of the Act by treating the entire interest amount as one lump sum amount, after giving the claimants the details of the amounts of interest spread over the relevant financial years and the breakup amongst several claimants, the insurance company shall, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, furnish to the claimants the certificate indicating the interest amounts computed for each year and with the breakup of the interest amounts payable to each claimant in each of those years as per the apportionm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax at source. However, the Insurance Company failed to follow the said procedure as explained in above mentioned decision by Hon'ble Division Bench. Instead the petitioner considered entire income of ₹ 1,53,938/as interest of the claimant for accounting year of 2008 and consequently it deducted ₹ 15,793/, from the amount payable to the claimant and deposit it with the Income Tax Department. 18. The above discussion has also brought out the fact that in entire transaction there is no fault of the claimant and therefore claimant cannot be penalised for action and mistake of the Insurance Company. 18.1 The poor workman, who is not even assessee and whose income at the relevant time was not taxable, cannot be made to undergo entire process of filing return and reclaim the amount. 19. Therefore, there is no justification to interfere with and disturb the order passed by the Commissioner. The learned Commissioner has passed the impugned order after taking into account the direction and guidelines issued by Division Bench of this Court in Hansagauri Prafulchandra Ladhani and ors v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and ors, (Supra) and, therefore also there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
