Delhi

North West

CC/30/2015

GOPAL KRISHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Opp.Party(s)

19 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.

 

CC No: 30/2015

D.No- ________________________                              Date: _________________             

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

GOPAL KRISHAN S/o LATE SH. S. RAM,    

R/o 51, SUBHAVANA NIKETAN,

PITAM PURA, DELHI-110034.                                     … COMPLAINANT

 

              Versus

 

 

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,

MADHUBAN CHOWK, DELHI.                                  … OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

CORAM : SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

               SH. BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER

      MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER   

                     

                                                            Date of Institution: 07.01.2015

                                                                    Date of Decision: 19.07.2017

 

SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

 

1.       Complainant has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant is a pensioner and has been getting pension through OP and the OP

CC No. 30/2015                                                                             Page 1 to 7

          deducting an amount of Rs.7,130/- as TDS on the amount paid to the complainant. The complainant filed Income Tax return for the assessment year-2013-2014 through ‘online’ on 30.07.2013 and the return so filed automatically reflected that an amount of Rs.7,130/- was payable and in view of the fact that the complainant paid self assessment tax exactly what was required to be paid and on the basis of the calculation done by the complainant based on the TDS deducted. The complainant further submitted that the complainant checked up the position about the TDS deducted by the OP and the complainant came to know that an amount of Rs.7,130/- (as reflected in the statement automatically) was deducted as TDS based on the total amount of pension paid to the complainant. The complainant further alleged that when the complainant mentioned about the fact that the TDS deducted by the other banks like HDFC etc. had been reflected in the return automatically why the amount deducted by the OP had not been reflected therein and without being clear about the reason for the same, the bank gave a certificate indicating that a sum of Rs.7,130/- as TDS has been remitted on 01.03.2013 and as required under the instructions on the subject, the complainant sent a hard copy of the return filed ‘online’ alongwith the original certificate given by the bank to the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore by speed post and

CC No. 30/2015                                                                             Page 2 to 7

          the complainant also indicated in the hard copy of the return that the amount shown as Tax Payable had been deducted and remitted on 01.03.2013 by the bank i.e. OP. Thereafter a communication dated 03.04.2014 was received from the CPC, Bangalore in the form of a reminder with reference to the defective notice issued under Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act by the Jurisdictional Officer (JO) and the reminder specifically mentioned that (i) taxes due should be paid and corrected return under Section 139(9) should be filed. The complainant further alleged that mentioned above the complainant had paid whatever tax was due and as such the complainant was not clear about the problem and with a view to understanding the problem and the solution of the same, the complainant sent mails to CPC, Bangalore during April and May-2014 seeking their advice and as nothing was heard from CPC, Bangalore and the complainant had not received any notice from the concerned officer, the complainant visited to check up the position from the Income Tax Office on 3^rd and 21^st May-2014. The complainant further submitted that he visited the Income Tax Office various times but the complainant’s problem could not be solved. However, during discussion, the complainant learnt that the said amount had not been uploaded by the bank as such that amount is being treated as if the same had not been deposited by the bank.

CC No. 30/2015                                                                             Page 3 to 7

          The complainant approached the bank with the request that the entry of the amount which had been remitted should be uploaded and a copy of the same be given for onward transmission to CPC, Bangalore and the complainant was also told that if the complainant wanted to solve the problem then the complainant should deposit the amount again. On 05.06.2014, the complainant contacted the Branch Manager, PNB with a written request on the similar lines as suggested by the ITOs and the Branch Manager sent scanned copy of the same to the AGM concerned for doing the needful and also discussed with the AGM on mobile and about Form No. 16 which under the law was required to be issued by the bank at their own to the Income Tax payee/complainant and the complainant obtained the same from the bank on 17.06.2014. However, subsequently, with reference to the earlier notice dated 03.04.2014 the complainant received a reminder dated 28.10.2014 followed by another reminder dated 29.10.2014 from CPC, Bangalore stating that if the defect was not corrected by 30.11.2014 the return would be treated as invalid. The complainant further alleged that nothing was received from PNB with reference to earlier request and visits and the complainant visited the branch again on 05.11.2014 and the complainant was there for more than 3 hours and the Branch Manager discussed the matter with the concerned

CC No. 30/2015                                                                             Page 4 to 7

          manager on mobile and assured that some thing would be done on priority basis as the date given by the CPC Bangalore was the last day of November-2014 and subsequently on 10.11.2014 the complainant visited the branch and the Branch Manager was told was on leave. The complainant handed over a copy of relevant paper to the next in charge and explained the problem and she did talk to the same manager (outsource) who informed the complainant that it was for the bank to upload the deduction and he was not in a position to do any thing in the matter and the complainant again necessitated visits to the ITO and this time could see the concerned ITO on second visit on 13.11.2014 and after meeting Sh. Kundan Lal, ITO on 10.11.2014 and the complainant explained the matter and the problem being faced by the complainant and he gave a printout from his computer and mentioned that it was not possible for them to solve the problem as bankers had committed a mistake and as such it was for them to solve the problem and it was also suggested to talk to Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore and accordingly on 12.11.2014 the complainant discussed the matter twice with two different persons but the problem could not be solved. The complainant accordingly alleged that he suffered financially and has also suffered mental tension and agony and could not do other work.

CC No. 30/2015                                                                             Page 5 to 7

2.       On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing him mental agony and harassment.

3.    OP has been contesting the case of the complaint and filed reply thereby submitting that the present complaint is not maintainable and there is no cause of action in favour of the complainant. Op further submitted that the work of Income Tax on behalf of OP is being done through an out-source agency i.e. AGML E-Service Pvt. Ltd. and that agency has necessary work in respect of TDS deduction and that company has uploaded the amount of tax deducted for the record of the Income Tax Department and the officers of the bank had tried their level best to sort out the problem with the help of agency and Form no.16 was provided to the complainant.

4.      The complainant filed rejoinder and denied the submissions of the OP and submitted that the OP has taken a misleading plea.

5.      In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence. In order to prove his case the complainant also filed copy of certificate regarding pension received during the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 and showing that an amount of Rs.7,130/- was deducted and TDS remitted on 01.03.2013. The complainant has also placed on record copy of representation dated

CC No. 30/2015                                                                             Page 6 to 7

         05.06.2014 to the OP, copy of Form no. 16 (duplicate) and also placed on record copy of letter dated 16.01.2015 of the OP.

6.      On the other hand, on behalf of OP Sh. Jagbir Singh, Officer, PNB, B.O., Madhuban Chowk, Rohini, Delhi-110085 filed his affidavit in evidence which is as per the case of OP taken in reply.

7.      The complainant as well as the OP have filed written arguments.

8.     The complainant has failed to place on record any document/notice issued by the Income Tax Department to prove his version that tax demand of Rs.7,130/- is due and entry of TDS deduction of Rs.7,130/- was not uploaded by the OP or its agency in the record of Income Tax Department. Thus it seems that the complainant has with held that the documentary evidence from being placed on record of the Forum. We are accordingly of opinion that there is no merits in this case and the case is dismissed.

9.      Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on this 19^th July, 2017.

 

 

 

 

 

BARIQ AHMED                           USHA KHANNA                      M.K. GUPTA

  (MEMBER)                                  (MEMBER)                       (PRESIDENT)

 

CC No. 30/2015                                                                             Page 7 to 7