West Bengal

Siliguri

CC/2013/110

DIPANKAR MITRA, - Complainant(s)

Versus

BRANCH MANAGER, - Opp.Party(s)

30 Mar 2015

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 110/S/2013.                DATED : 30.03.2015.                 

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

 

 

                      MEMBERS              : SMT. PRATITI  BHATTACHARJEE &

                                                              SRI PABITRA MAJUMDAR.

 

COMPLAINANT                      : DIPANKAR MITRA,  

                                       Pati Coloney Road No.-4,

                                       P.O. - Pradhan Nagar,

                                       Darjeeling.

                                                              

O.Ps.             1.                     : BRANCH MANAGER,

                                                  State Bank of India,

                                                  M. N. Saha Sarani,

                                                  Pradhan Nagar.

                                                               

               

                                    2.                     : HEAD OFFICE,,

                                                              State Bank of India,

                                                              Mangaldwip Hill Cart Road,

                                                              Siliguri – 734 001.

                        

                                   

                                                                                                                                                                          

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Self.

FOR THE OP No.1                          : Sri N. Chakraborty, Advocate.

J U D G E M E N T

Succinctly summarized the complainant’s case stands that he deposited some amount in the OPs’ bank.  The OPs’ bank stated to deduct the income tax @ 20%.  The complainant went to SBI who expressed their inability to make return of excess amount of 10 %.  The complainant approached the income tax authority who directed the complainant to approach the State Bank of India for refund.  The complainant moved here and there, but did not get back his excess amount alleged to have been deducted by the State Bank of India has not been returned to him.  So, he filed this case before this Forum.

 

Contd.......P/2

Consumer Case No.110/S/2013

 

-:2:-

 

OP’s case is that the complainant did not provide his PAN number to this OP No.1 at the time of fixed deposit.  As per new rule, if the PAN number is not provided the Tax Deduction at Source would be 20% and in case PAN number is provided, the tax deduction at source will be 10%.  The OP No.1 has to depend on 3^rd party i.e. C.A. for submitting return.  The PAN number of the complainant was not given in the account number which was time consuming matter.  The online tax deduction at source certificate was ready on 11.09.2013.  It is case of the bank that total money deducted has been deposited into Central Government account as per the document submitted by the complainant.  So it is the Income Tax Department who can reply regarding status of excess amount deducted at source.  The case of the OP No.1 further that without presence of Income tax department no decision could be taken regarding the process of refunding the money.

 

Decision with reason

 

The complainant has to prove that there was deficiency of service and there was negligence on the part of the bank.

To prove this point, only one document has been produced by the complainant. 

OP has filed Form no.27A. 

It appears from the Form 16A and Form No.27A that money which has been deducted by the State Bank of India, from the account of the complainant, has been deposited into the Central Government Account.

So, from the above two documents, it appears that State Bank of India deducted tax and the same has been deposited into the Central Government account and without presence of Income Tax Department, no fruitful order can be passed. 

 

Contd.......P/3

Consumer Case No.110/S/2013

 

-:3:-

 

So, without any other acceptable documents and evidence, it cannot be concluded that State Bank of India has neglected and caused deficiency in service.

So, the presence of Income Tax Department is necessary.

Hence, it is,

                   O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.110/S/2013 is dismissed on contest, but without cost.

Let copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties, free of cost.