Orissa

Debagarh

CC/32/2015

Dibakar Pattnaik, aged about 92 years, S/o- Lt. Hrusikesh Pattnaik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief General Manger, S.B. I, Deogarh Branch - Opp.Party(s)

D. K. Guru

02 Sep 2016

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, DEOGARH.

 

Sri Pratap Ch. Mahapatra Member, & Smt. Jayanti Pradhan, Member (W)

 

   Dibakara Pattnaik, aged about 92 Years,

S/O. Late Hrusikesh Pattnaik,

R/O. Deogarh Town, W.No.4,

Post/P.S/Dist/-Deogarh.                                                          ...         Complainant.

 

                        Versus

Chief General Manager,

S.B.I. Deogarh Branch.

            At/Post/Dist/-Deogarh.                                                           ...         Opp.Party.

 

Counsel for parties :

                        For the complainant    :           D.K. Guru & S. Guru, Advocate,

                        For the Opp.Party       :-          P.K. Rath & S.K. Rath, Advocate.

C.C.No.30/2015.

Date of Hearing: 3.8.2016                      Date of order: 2.9.2016.

PRATAP CHANDRA MAHAPATRA, MEMBER -The genus of the case lies in the fact that the complainant, a permanent resident of Deogarh Town, Ward No.4, PO/PS/District – Deogarh aged about 92 years deposited Rs.5,00,000/- in the State Bank of India, Deogarh Branch, Deogarh on 21.12.2012 for a period of 24 months vide TD-CS/33-0558408 related to A/c No.32723429544 and at the time the amount was deposited OP, who is the official of the said Branch of the Bank had not asked for the PAN Card. After the said termed deposit got matured on 21.12.2014 when the complainant withdrew the amount it was seen that OP has deducted Rs.21,326/- which on query, OP stated since no PAN card has been submitted tax amount under TDS has been deducted. The petitioner has not been informed to submit PAN card at the time of deposit or during withdrawal or issued any letter to the petitioner for the above said purpose by the OP and deducted the legitimate dues of the petitioner. OP advised the petitioner to submit the PAN Card before the authority then the deducted amount will be credited in his account. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his PAN Card before the authority but after online verification, the petitioner found that no amount has been deducted and credited to his account. The complainant requested and approached to the OP to supply copy of Form No.16A to ascertain the deduction but the OP did not supplied Form N.16A to the complainant and avoided him in various manner. The complainant served advocate notice to the OP through his advocate Sri D.K. Guru to credit his legitimate amount as soon as possible. But it is in vain. Hence the complaint.

2. The OP has appeared in the case through his advocate and filed written version for defending his case, which runs as follows:

1. While admitting averments of complainant contained in Paras -1,2,3 OP has urged the complainant to prove the fact that he is a senior citizen of aged 92 years and a person of respect of Deogarh District.
2. It has also been contended by OP that contents of Para-4 being matter of record need no reply except the fact that the amount deposited was sale proceed of landed property of the complainant and the same was deposited for his medical purpose as well as to meet expenditure of higher studies of his granddaughter, which is denied.
3. Denying averment in Para-5 of the complaint it has been contended by OP that it is false and fabricated since in the Notice Board of the OP, State Bank of India, Deogarh Branch, Deogarh, it has been very prominently displayed the information that customer should mention the PAN (Personal Account Number) while depositing any amount, whose income is subjected to T.D.S. But, complainant, in spite of displayed information in Notice Board and request of the staff of OP failed to furnish PAN. As regards to the fact that the complainant is 92 years above the aged of 60 years, but he has not submitted any declaration in Form No.15H, at the time of deposit of money seeking exemption for TDS. As the petitioner has not furnished PAN and declaration in Form No.15H automatically tax amount was remitted to Income Tax Department deducting from the deposit amount.
4. Denying averment contained in Paras – 7 & 8 of the complaint OP has contended that the complainant was quite aware that PAN card is required at the time of deposit or withdrawal but he neglected.
5. Declaring the allegation in Paras – 9 & 10 to be false, in the context of averment in Para-11 OP stated that the complainant has served notice to the OP through his advocate, which the OP had replied stating about his non-submission of PAN Card before depositing or withdrawing the amount.
6. In the context of averment made in Para -12 of the complaint, it has been stated by the OP that complainant sustained financial loss, mental pain and agony not due to deficiency of service of OP but due to his own negligence by non-submission of PAN card. The OP has not acted in any manner to come within the purview of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Hence Denied.

3. Heard both the contesting parties. Learned Advocate for complainant submitted that at the time of deposite PAN card was not required by the OP Bank but at the time of withdrawal of the matured value, an amount of Rs.21,326/- was found to have been deducted towards IT. Senior Citizens are exempted from paying IT. The complainant possesses PAN card and such deduction is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Further, Ld. Advocate submitted that it is a regular practice of OP Bank to require PAN card at the time of deposit of any amount exceeding Rs.49,000/- but it is strange in the instant case even an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was deposited no PAN card was sought for. Neither before nor after the amount was deposited nor before withdrawal of matured value PAN card was required to be produced and mechanically Op deducted Rs.21,326/- putting complainant to financial loss resulting in mental agony and pain. With this Complainant’s case was closed. Learned Advocate for OP submitted that it is not mandatory to ask depositors to produce PAN card in the face of information communicated vide display in the Notice Board. Also provisions relating to Senior Citizens has been clearly stated in rule 15(g) and 15(h) which in the case in hand has not been complied. Also to the question of the learned counsel for complainant as to intimate through mobile SMS, it was answered by learned advocate for OP that it is not mandatory to intimate all depositors through SMS except Lonees of the Bank. Bank has committed no deficiency of service. Seeking permission of this Forum to submit Photographs of information displayed in the Notice Board of the State Bank of India, Deogarh Branch, Deogarh on later date concluded case of the OP. Perused documents filed and found as follows:

1. OP has displayed very clear and unambiguous information as to the fact that Deposite Holders who are not Taxpayer and whose annual interest is equal to or above Rs.10,000/- and do not want Tax to be deducted at source should deposit Form 15 H or 15G immediately along with a copy of PAN card, other wise 20% TDS will be deducted at source as per Income Tax Rules in Odia, Hindi and English. During hearing Learned advocate has stated that  that it is a regular practice of OP Bank to require PAN card at the time of deposit of any amount exceeding Rs.49,000/- but it is strange in the instant case even an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was deposited no PAN card was sought for. This rules out the fact that the complainant was ignorant of the fact to submit copy of the PAN card and declaration in Form 15H at the time of making the deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- on 21.12.2012. In face of a very clear cut display in the Notice Board, not asking particularly by Bank staff for PAN card and declaration in Form 15H at the time of deposit is not a deficiency in service on the part of OP.
2. We refer here extracts of : Tax Payers Information Series – 28 : TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE : (TDS) : OTHER THAN SALARIES : INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT published by Directorate of Income Tax (PR, PP & OL), 6th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001.

Chapter 4

4.3 TDS Certificate :

A certificate is prescribed u/s 203, which is to be issued by person deducting tax at source. Every person deducting tax is duty bound to furnish this certificate to the person from whose income/payment the tax has been deducted. The certificate should specify the amount of tax deducted and rate at which it is deducted (Form No. 16A, under Rule 31) and other particulars prescribed. A new form 16A has been introduced w.e.f. from 1/4/2010 vide Income-tax (6th Amendment) Rule, 2010(Pl. Ref. Annexure – 4). The new Rule 31 introduced vide I.T.(6th Amendment) Rules provides the following with respect to certificate of deduction of tax.

Rule – 31

(1) The certificate of deduction of tax at source by any person in accordance with Chapter XVII-B or the certificate of payment of tax by the employer on behalf of the employee under sub section (1A) of section 192 shall be in.

(a)     Form No. 16, if the deduction or payment of tax is under section 192; and

(b)     Form No. 16A if the deduction is under any other provision of Chapter XVII-B.

(2) The certificate referred to in sub-rule (1) shall specify:

(a)     valid permanent account number (PAN) of the deductee;

(b)     valid tax deduction and collection account number (TAN) of the deductor;

(c)     (i) book identification number or numbers where deposit of tax deducted is without production of challan in case of an office of the Government;

(ii) challan identification number or numbers in case of payment through bank.

(d)   (i) receipt number of the relevant quarterly statement of tax deducted at  source which is furnished in accordance with the provisions of rule 31A;

(ii) receipt numbers of all the relevant quarterly statements in case the statement referred to in clause (i) is for tax deducted at source from income chargeable under the head “Salaries”.

(3) The certificates in Forms specified in column (2) of the Table below shall be furnished to the employee or the payee, as the case may be, as per the periodicity specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) and by the time specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the said Table:-

Sl.No. (1)	FormNo. (2)	Periodicity (3)	Due Date                           (4)
1	16	Annual	By 31st day of May of the financial year immediately following the financial year in which the income was paid and tax deducted.
2	16A	Quarterly	Within fifteen days from the due date for furnishing the statement of tax deducted at source under rule 31 A.

 

 (4) xxxxxx

(5) The deductor may issue a duplicate certificate in Form No. 16 or Form No. 16A if the deductee has lost the original certificate so issued and makes a request for issuance of a duplicate certificate and such duplicate certificate is certified as duplicate by the deductor.

(6) (i) Where a certificate is to be furnished in Form No. 16, the deductor may, at his option, use digital signatures to authenticate such certificates.

(ii) In case of certificates issued under clause (i), the deductor shall ensure that

(a) the provisions of sub rule (2) are complied with;

(b) once the certificate is digitally signed, the contents of the certificates are not amenable to change; and

(c) the certificates have a control number and a log of such certificates is maintained by the deductor.

(7) xxxxxx

It is evident that although complainant in his averment has stated to have asked/required OP to provide him a copy of Form No.16A to ascertain as to whether the amount of Rs.21,326/- deducted has been credited to Income Tax Department has failed to adduce any such document while the OP has denied the fact. But according to Rule 31 of Income Tax Rules, It is mandatory on the part of OP to issue a TDS Certificate to complainant. This counts to deficiency in service and entitles complainant to reliefs sought for.

O R D E R.

   The complaint is allowed. The OP is directed to pay the complainant Rs.21,326/- (Rupees twenty one thousands three hundred and twenty-six) along with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of maturity i.e. 21.12.2014 till the amount is actually paid ; Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) towards compensation for mental agony and pain and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) towards cost of litigation within 45 days from pronunciation of this order, failing which he shall have to pay in addition to these amounts interest @ 12% till the amount is actually paid in course of law.

   Office is directed to supply the free copies of the order to the parties keeping acknowledgement of the receipt and date thereof.

   Order pronounced in the open court today i.e. 2^nd  day of September, 2016 under my hand and seal of this forum.

               I agree,            

 

             MEMBER (w)                                                                               MEMBER.         

                                                         Dictated and Corrected by me.

 

                                                                        MEMBER