IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI *HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N +CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2264 OF 2014 %01.09.2025 #Between: 1. NATIONAL ISNURANCE CO LTD & ANOTHER, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ARUNDALPETA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DIST. REP BNY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. SATYANARAYANA COTTON INDUSTRIESDIED, REP BY ITS PARTNER MR.ALOKAM SATYANARAYAN, S/O VEERA RAGHAVAIAH, HINDU, R/O THIMMAPURAM VILLAGE, YADLAPADU MANDAL, GUNTUR DIST. 2. ALOKAM DHANALAKSHMI, W/O.LATE ALOKAM SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDENT OF S.V.R.PARADISE, FLAT NO.203, DOOR NO. 1-2-49, 4TH LINE, S.V.N.COLONY, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. A JAYANTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N SRIRAM MURTHY The Court made the following: <Gist: >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. 2019 (2) ALD 219 This Court made the following: -2- IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI *HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N +CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2264 OF 2014 %01.09.2025 #Between: 1. NATIONAL ISNURANCE CO LTD & ANOTHER, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ARUNDALPETA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DIST. REP BNY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. SATYANARAYANA COTTON INDUSTRIESDIED, REP BY ITS PARTNER MR.ALOKAM SATYANARAYAN, S/O VEERA RAGHAVAIAH, HINDU, R/O THIMMAPURAM VILLAGE, YADLAPADU MANDAL, GUNTUR DIST. 2. ALOKAM DHANALAKSHMI, W/O.LATE ALOKAM SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDENT OF S.V.R.PARADISE, FLAT NO.203, DOOR NO. 1-2-49, 4TH LINE, S.V.N.COLONY, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 01.09.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No 2. Whether the copies of order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No 3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Yes/No ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N -3- APHC010605032014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2264/2014 Between: 1. NATIONAL ISNURANCE CO LTD & ANOTHER, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ARUNDALPETA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DIST. REP BNY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. SATYANARAYANA COTTON INDUSTRIESDIED, REP BY ITS PARTNER MR.ALOKAM SATYANARAYAN, S/O VEERA RAGHAVAIAH, HINDU, R/O THIMMAPURAM VILLAGE, YADLAPADU MANDAL, GUNTUR DIST. 2. ALOKAM DHANALAKSHMI, W/O.LATE ALOKAM SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDENT OF S.V.R.PARADISE, FLAT NO.203, DOOR NO. 1-2-49, 4TH LINE, S.V.N.COLONY, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toto allow the CRP and set-aside the order dt.03.07.2013 passed in E.P.No.389 of 2007 in O.S.No.360 of 1989 on the file of the I Addl Senior Civil Judge Court Guntur. IA NO: 1 OF 2014(CRPMP 1669 OF 2014 -4- Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased condone the delay of 42 days in filing the CRP against the order dt.03.07.2013 passed in E.P.No.389 of 2007 in O.S.No.360 of 1989 on the file of the I Addl Senior Civil Judge Court Guntur. IA NO: 2 OF 2014(CRPMP 1718 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant stay of all further proceedings in EP No.389/2007 in OS No.360/1989 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Guntur, pending disposal of the main CRP IA NO: 3 OF 2014(CRPMP 4200 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order dt. 22/08/2014 passed in CRP.no. 2264 of 2014 dismissing the said CRP and restore the same on to file and decide the same on merits IA NO: 1 OF 2015(CRPMP 4341 OF 2015 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to modify the order dated 10.04.2015 i.e. Restoration of CRP.No.2264 of 2014 on to file by ordering restoration of CRP.MP.No. 1718 of 2014 in CRP.No.2264 of 2014 and incorporate the same in the Order dated 10.04.2105 passed in CRPMP.No.4200 of 2014 in CRP.No. 2264 of 2014 IA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased be pleased to 'Expedite' the hearing of C.R.P. No. 2264 of 2014 on the file of this Hon' ble Court IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to permit the 2nd petitioner to bring her on record as respondent No.2 as legal representative of the deceased 1St respondent/ D.Hr/ plaintiff in C.R.P. No. 2264 of 2014 on the file of this Hon' ble Court and pass -5- Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. A JAYANTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N SRIRAM MURTHY The Court made the following: -6- THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N CIVIL REVISION PETITION.No.2264 of 2014 ORDER : 1. The petitioners have filed the CRP challenging the order dated 03.07.2013 passed in EP.No.389 of 2007 in OS.No.360 of 1989 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. 2. The petitioners have deducted the tax while satisfying the decree. The deduction of tax by the petitioners was challenged by the respondent and the respondent filed EP.No.389 of 2007 under Order XXI Rule 43, 66, 64 of CPC seeking attachment of the schedule properties and to sell the same by conducting auction. The learned Judge allowed the execution petition and directed the J.Dr to pay the balance amount in accordance with the warrant. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the compensation amount which earned interest because of the delayed payment is liable to be taxed. It is also submitted that Section 194-A of the Income Tax Act empowers the petitioners to deduct the tax as the interest component as well. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that the deducted tax was already credited to the income tax department -7- and it is always open for the respondent to file a claim before the Income Tax Department and seek refund and that the respondent cannot seek attachment of the property of the petitioners for realization of the tax paid by the petitioners in accordance with Section 194-A of the Income Tax Act. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the tax can be levied if the income on the interest from compensation exceeds Rs.50,000/- during the relevant assessment year. It is submitted that the amount was claimed from 31.08.1986 to 29.01.2004 and the tax deducted on the interest component does not exceed the cap of Rs.50,000/- for the assessment year. As such, there is no justification in the petitioners deducting the tax and now claim that the respondent would have to approach the Income Tax authorities for claiming the refund. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent places reliance on Kolluri Nasaramma and others Vs. M.Anjaneyulu and another1, this Court while considering the issue of deduction of tax on the income credited by way of interest on compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the mistake committed by the office of insurance company by 1 2019 (2) ALD 219 -8- wrongfully deducting the tax and crediting it to the income tax department cannot be justified by taking a stand that the claimants can claim refund from the income tax authorities. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material on record. 8. Section 194-A of Income Tax Act, TDS is deducted at a rate of 10% on interest income other than interest on securities. If the payer is a bank, post office, or co-operative society, the TDS threshold limit is Rs. 50,000. For other payers, the limit is Rs. 10,000. However, for senior citizens, the threshold limit is higher, it increases from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 for interest income earned from banks, post offices, or co-operative societies for any financial year. 9. On the facts of this case, the EP was filed for recovery of a total amount of RS.52,88,097/-, out of which an amount of Rs.19,76,000/- towards the decree amount an amount of Rs.27,52,348/- towards interest at 8% per annum from 31.08.1986 to 29.01.2004 and an amount of RS.4,47,893/- towards interest from 30.01.2004 to 10.12.2007. Apart from an amount of Rs.1,11,856/- towards the costs as per the decree. -9- 10. If the average interest claimed is to be considered from 31.08.1986 to 29.01.2004 and 30.01.2004 to 10.12.2007, the interest paid on the decreed amount cannot fall within the ambit of deduction under Section 194-A of the Income Tax Act. 11. Admittedly the petitioners have erred in deducting the tax on the interest on the decreed amount and crediting the same to the income tax department. The petitioners no doubt have a proper set up with experienced team of officers to handle such issues on a day to day basis. The respondent cannot be called upon to seek a refund from the income tax department for a wrong deduction and credit made by the petitioners. It is also unclear as to with which circle of the income tax department, the petitioners have credited the tax. It is not justified on part of the petitioners to submit that remedy of claiming refund by the respondent is available for the respondent. 12. On the contrary, it is open for the petitioners to claim for a refund of the wrong credit by submitting a proper explanation to the department regarding the error committed by their officers. On these considerations this Court is of the view that the petitioners have committed a mistake in calculating the liability of payment of tax on the interest component on the decreed amount. The learned Judge while allowing the EP.No.389 of 2007 has passed -10- a well considered and well reasoned order. No legal grounds are raised setting aside the well reasoned order. Accordingly the present CRP deserves to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dated 01.09.2025 LR copy to be marked B/o.KGM -11- THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N CIVIL REVISION PETITION.No.2264 of 2014 Dated 01.09.2025 KGM -12-