TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any is not justified in deducting at source in view of the guideline issued in Hansaguri’s case(2006 (10) TMI 383 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT). Therefore, it is of the view that it is for the Insurance Company to approach the Income Tax Department for refund and not the original claimants. - Special Civil Application No. 9616 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 10-11-2017 - Z. K. Saiyed, J. Mr Rathin P Raval, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr Mr Bhatt, Senior Advocate with Mrs Mauna M Bhatt Advocate for the Respondent JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner original opponent No.3 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the award amount was paid by the respondent after deducting 20% TDS as the pancard of the applicant was not available. This was done pursuant to the provisions of Section 194A, (3)(ix) and (ixa) of the Income Tax Act ( IT ) as inserted by Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 1.6.2015. 6. He has submitted that the petitioner calculated the interest portion for claimant as per the award amount. It is crystal clear that interest payment to the claimant exceeds ₹ 50,000/and hence the interest amount @ 20% was deducted. This deducted interest was pursuant to the provisions of the Income Tax Act referred above. It was then deposited with the IncomeTax Department. 7. He has submitted that following provisions are relevant : Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal has specifically directed to follow the guidelines for deduction of Income Tax in the case of Hansagauri Prafulchandra Ladhani Ors. vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2007 ACJ 1897 (DB) Guj. He has submitted that the petitioner has not followed the said direction of the learned Tribunal and has incorrectly deducted the income tax amounting to ₹ 16,226/on the total amount of interest accrued during the year 2006-2007 to 2016. Lastly he has submitted that the order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 12.4.2017 in Execution Petition No.268 of 2016 requires no interference by this Court. 11.Mr.M.R.Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Mrs.Mouna M. Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent No.4 has submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exceed fifty thousand rupees. 10. The Gujarat High Court in case of Smt. Hansagauri Prafulchandra Ladhani (supra) had occasion to interpret this provision w.e.f. 01.06.2015, however, this Clause (ix) of subsection (3) of Section 194A has been omitted and is replaced by Clauses (ix) and (ixa) which read as under : (ix) to such income credited by way of interest on the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. (ixa) to such income paid by way of interest on the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal where the amount of such income or, as the case may be, the aggregate of the amounts of such income paid during the financial year does not exceed fifty thousand rupees. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d place in the exclusion clause contained in subsection (3) of Section 194A. In fact, it would prima facie appear that the ceiling of ₹ 50,000/per annum for such exclusion is now done away with in case of crediting of interest on compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal while retaining such limit in cases of payment of interest on such compensation. However, we need not thresh out this last part of the issue since admittedly, in the present case, for none of the years under consideration the interest income exceeded ₹ 50,000/. In fact, this Court in case of Smt. Hansagauri Prafulchandra Ladhani (supra) provided for further splitting up of this ceiling of ₹ 50,000/per claimant basis. Looked from any angle, the insurance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the insurance company would be to approach the Income Tax Department for refund, as may be advised. Lastly he has submitted that in view of above the learned Claim Tribunal was right in directing the petitioner to pay the amount to respondent No.1. 14. I have gone through the papers produced before me as well as the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned advocates on both the sides as well as partyinperson. I have also gone through the decision rendered in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs. Bhoyabhai Haribhai Bharvad and Ors., reported in 2017 ACJ 1727. In the present case, the petitioner Insurance Company deducted TDS amount from the interest accrued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
