IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 28th day of November, 2022.
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 04/2019 (Filed on 10-01-2019)
Petitioner : Jebin P. James.
Panayolil,
Mother Theresa Road,
Ettumanoor P.O.
Kottayam – 686631
Vs.
Opposite party : Branch Manager,
Muthoot Finance,
Ettumanoor.
(Adv. Vinu Jacob Mathew)
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The brief of the complaint is as follows. The complainant made 3 deposits of Rs.18, 000/- each and one deposit of Rs.15,000/- with the opposite party during the year 2011-12. The deposits were renewed on maturity till the closing of the deposits in the year 2016-17. At the time of closing of the deposits the opposite party informed that TDS had been deducted from the interest. On enquiry about the details of TDS recovery the opposite party issued the statement dated 21.03.2017.From this statement it was revealed that TDS was deducted on 23.09.2015 and on 20.08.2016.
If TDS was deducted the amount should be remitted to Govt. account and the TDS traces should be given to the complainant. The TDS traces were not given. The complainant’s father approached the opposite party several times for getting the TDS traces but not received.
On 25.07.2017 a written complainant was given to the opposite party. A
complaint was given to the Head office of opposite party at Ernakulum on 27.07.2017 and another complaint was given to the regional office of opposite
party at Kottayam on 31.7.2017 for getting the TDS Traces.
As per rule if the interest is below Rs.10, 000/- TDS need not be deducted. The act of the opposite party is deficiency in their Service. The opposite party is liable to refund the TDS amount illegally collected and to pay compensation for the mental agony and sufferings along with cost for this litigation. Hence this complaint is filed.
On admission of the complaint copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and filed their version.
The version of the opposite party is that as per the instruction of central
Government,20% of the interest have to be deducted as TDS for depositors not
having Pancard. The complainant was not having Pan card in 2015-16. An amount of Rs.687/- was deducted from the interest of RS 3439/-.in the year 2015-16. The TDS amount was remitted to Govt account on 30.04. 2016.
The complainant had given the pan card details only in the year 2016-17 and TDS was not deducted in the year 2016-17. The TDS traces were received on 13.09.17 and were given to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service or delay on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is not eligible to get any amounts as claimed in the complaint.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exhibits A1 to A4. The opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exhibits B1 and B2. The complainant was cross examined by the opposite party as PW1.
On the basis of the complaint, Version of the opposite party and evidence
adduced we would like to consider the following points.
1 Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party
2 If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider point No1 and 2 together
Points 1 and 2
Ongoing through the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence on record, it is clear that the complainant had made three deposits of Rs18,000 each and one deposit of Rs15,000 with the opposite party at the rate of 12% interest for the period from 23/03/2014 to 23/09/2015 and the deposits were renewed for the period from 23/09/2015 to 20/08/2016 at the rate 9.5% interest. Thus, the complainant was having total deposit of Rs.69000/-.with interest 9.5 % for the period from 23.09.2015 to 31.03.2016 in the financial year 2015-16. The opposite party had deducted Rs.687/- as TDS from the accrued interest of Rs,3435/- for the period from 23/09/2015 to 31/03/2016.
Now the question is whether the complainant can make deposits of Rs.69,000/- with the opposite party without having a pan card and whether the opposite party can accept Rs69,000/- as four fixed deposits from the complainant.
The Income Tax ACT1961, Section 139 A, rule 114 B the following conditions were given with regard to Time deposits.
[Transactions in relation to which permanent account number is to be quoted in all documents for the purpose of clause (c) of sub-section (5) of section 139A.
114B. Every person shall quote his permanent account number in all documents pertaining to the transactions specified in the Table below, namely: — (12)
A time deposit with,— (i) a banking company or a co-operative bank to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), applies (including any bank or banking institution referred to in section 51 of that Act); (ii) a Post Office; (iii) a Nidhi referred to in section 406 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013); or (iv) a non-banking financial company which holds a certificate of registration under section 45-IA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934), to hold or accept deposit from public. | Amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees or aggregating to more than five lakh rupees during a financial year. |
It is clear that the pan card is mandatory for making deposits exceeding Rs50,000/- rupees or aggregating to more than five lakh rupees. This shows that
the opposite party had accepted the fixed deposit of Rs.69000/- as four deposits
since the complainant was not having a Pan number.
Now the question is whether the opposite party is bound to deduct the TDS from the interest on the deposits of the complainant since he is not having pan
number.
Section 194 of IT Act gives the rules for the deduction of TDS.
As per section 194A, tax is to be deducted at the time of payment or credit of interest (to any account by whatever name called), whichever is earlier.
No tax is required to be deducted if aggregate amount of interest credited or paid to the payee in respect of time deposit during the financial year doesn’t exceed the following limit:
Payer | Threshold limit if Payee is |
| Senior Citizen | Others |
Banking Co. | 50,000 | 40,000 |
Co-operative Society engaged in banking business | 50,000 | 40,000 |
Post Office | 50,000 | 40,000 |
In any other case | 5,000 | 5,000 |
The ceiling limit as specified above shall not be computed branch-wise if such banking company or co-operative society or public company has adopted Core Banking Solutions (CBS). For the above purposes &time deposits means deposits including recurring deposits repayable on the expiry of fixed periods.
From the above discussed findings it is clear that the total interest on the four deposits of Rs.69,000/- for the financial year 2015-16 is only Rs.3435/- which is below Rs.5000/-.Hence the act of the opposite party in deducting Rs.687/- as TDS from the interest of RS.3435/- for the financial year 2015-16 was against the rules as per section 194A of IT Act. Even though the opposite party claimed that they had deducted the TDS amount from the interest as per government directions, no such government direction had been produced by the opposite party.
It is clear that the opposite party had failed to give the promised interest amount to the complainant. The opposite party is bound to give Rs.687/- to the complainant. This act on the part of the opposite party is deficiency in their service and point no 1 and 2 are found in favor of the complainant. We allow the complaint and pass the following orders.
(1) The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.687/- to the complainant
(2) The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the
mental agony and sufferings to the complainant with cost RS.3000/-.
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. If not complied as ordered the amounts will carry 9% interest per annum from the date of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of November, 2022
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Appendix
Witness from the side of complainant
Pw1 – Mercy
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Statement dtd.21-10-2016 by opposite party
A2 - Statement dtd.21-10-2016 by opposite party
A3 - Statement dtd.21-10-2016 by opposite party
A4- Statement dtd.01-03-17 by opposite party
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Copy of PAN card in the name of petitioner
B2 – Copy of Form No.16A
By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
