BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.1-14

Date of Institution:01-01-2014

Date of Decision11-03-2015

Bhagwan Singh son of Sh.Jhanda Singh, resident of 121, Green Fields, Majitha Road, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

Standard Chartered Bank, 360, The Mall, Amritsar.

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Updip Singh, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party: Sh.M.L.Sharma, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Bhagwan Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that  he is aged about 91 years and was having Saving Bank Account No.543-13581-0 and 5431007460-9 with Opposite Party Bank  in which he used to make investments in various financial schemes from the amount of his life long savings, for the purpose of earning for his peaceful livelihood for the purpose of having comfortable old age. Complainant alleges that vide letter dated 7.3.2012 received from the Income Tax Department, he was asked to furnish information with regard to certain queries for income tax return for the assessment year 2008-2009, with regard to investments made through saving accounts in his name in Opposite Party Bank, mentioned above. Since it was a notice for securitization of the income tax returns, and complainant being an old person, engaged B.D.Bansal & Co. Auditors and Income Tax Consultants for dealing with Income Tax Department for the said purpose, by making payment of Rs.33000/- as professional fee. During the course of proceedings with Income Tax Department, it was found out that Opposite Party gave wrong information to Income Tax Department regarding cash deposit of Rs.21,81,000/- in the saving accounts of complainant during financial year 2007-2008. On receipt of this information, complainant made a complaint to Opposite Party with this regard on 30.8.2012. Opposite Party vide letter dated 31.8.2012 regretted wrong information to the Income Tax Department above mentioned, but took plea alleging of filing correct statement in the subsequent periods. But for the purpose of getting wrong information supplied by the Opposite Party to Income Tax Department, the complainant had to undergo or deal and a lot of harassment with Income Tax Department. Said act of the Opposite Party of giving wrong information to the Income Tax Department with regard to account of the complainant is gross deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, causing inconvenience, financial loss as well as harassment and mental agony to the complainant, making complainant entitled for compensation for such deficient act of Opposite Party. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to compensate the complainant for Rs.33000/- i.e. legal charges paid for getting Income Tax Notice withdrawn which was served due to wrong information supplied by the Opposite Party to Income Tax Department. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the Opposite Party bank has duly performed its duty to supply the necessary information to the Income Tax Department as per the provisions of section 114 E of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 which provides for furnishing of Annual Information Return to the Income Tax Department for accounts wherein cash deposits is aggregating INR 10 lakh and above in a finical year. At the time of filing of AIR regular return on August 31, 2008, the Opposite Party inadvertently reported cash deposit of Rs.21,81,000/- for account in the name of complainant, but to rectify the same a supplementary return was duly filed on August 12, 2009  under section 285BA of Income Tax Act, 1961 read  with Rule 114 E. The supplementary return was duly filed for deleting Rs.21,81,000/- transaction and requesting to consider only Rs. 10,60,000/- which was the actual cash deposited during the period 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008 and same request by the answering party bank was duly accepted by the Income Tax Department. However, mistake if any was rectified well within time and much before the notice issued by the Income Tax Department i.e. on 7.3.2012. Therefore, the Opposite Party is not liable for deficiency in service. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith other affidavits/ documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C19 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Naveen Malhotra, Branch Manager Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to OP4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant was having Saving Bank Account No.543-13581-0 and 5431007460-9 with Opposite Party Bank. The complainant received a  letter dated 7.3.2012 Ex.C6 from the Income Tax Department asking the complainant to  furnish information with regard to certain queries for income tax return for the assessment year 2008-2009, with regard to investments made through saving account in the name of the complainant with Opposite Party Bank. The complainant is 91 years old,  so he  engaged M/s. B.D.Bansal & Co. Auditors and Income Tax Consultants for dealing with Income Tax Department for the aforesaid purpose. The aforesaid Income Tax Consultant scrutinized the documents regarding income tax returns of the complainant and they collected the entire information from the Opposite Party Bank, scrutinized and investigated the entire matter and they charged Rs.33000/- from the complainant as  professional  fee vide receipt Ex.C16 dated 1.9.2012. The aforesaid Income Tax Consultant after thorough investigating/ scrutinizing the matter, found that the Opposite Party Bank gave wrong information to the Income Tax Department regarding the cash deposit of  Rs.21,81,000/- in the saving accounts of complainant during financial year 2007-2008. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Opposite Party Bank on 30.8.2012. Opposite Party Bank vide letter dated 31.8.2012 Ex.C12 regretted  that they have supplied the  wrong information to the Income Tax Department and took plea alleging that they have filed correct statement in the subsequent periods. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that due to wrong information supplied by the Opposite Party Bank to the Income Tax Department regarding the complainant, the complainant has to suffer mental shock, harassment as it relates to scrutinizing  the matter of income tax returns of the complainant and the complainant being 91 years old had to engage M/s. B.D.Bansal & Co. Auditors and Income Tax Consultants who charged Rs. 33000/- from the complainant as professional fee.  Ld.counsel for the complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the Opposite Party bank is duty bound to supply the necessary information to Income Tax Department regarding every account holder regarding transaction of Rs.10 lacs and above in a financial year. At the time of filing of AIR (Annual Information Return) on August 31, 2008, the Opposite Party inadvertently reported cash deposit of Rs.21,81,000/- for account bearing  No.54310135810 in the name of complainant Bhagwan Singh. In order to rectify the same, a supplementary return was duly filed on August 12, 2009 under section 285BA of Income Tax Act, 1961 read  with Rule 114E. Supplementary return was duly filed for  deleting Rs.21,81,000/- transaction and requesting to consider only Rs. 10,60,000/- which was the actual cash deposited during the period 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008 by the complainant and that request of the Opposite Party Bank was   duly accepted by the Income Tax Department. The mistake was rectified well within time and much before the notice issued by the Income Tax Department i.e. on 7.3.2012. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. However, it is the Income Tax Department who has issued the notice to the complainant on 7.3.2012 without checking the status of the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion we have come to the conclusion that the complainant has saving bank account No. 543-13581-0 & 5431007460-9 with the opposite party bank. The complainant received letter dated 7.3.2012 Ex.C-6 from the Income-tax department asking the complainant to furnish information with regard to certain queries for Income-tax return for the assessment year 2008-09 with regard to investments made through saving accounts in the name of the complainant with the opposite party bank. The complainant is 91 years old Sr.citizen. He is unable to deal with the Income-tax queries, therefore, he had to engage M/s. B.D. Bansal & Co. ,Auditors and Income Tax Consultants for dealing with Income-tax department regarding aforesaid purpose. The aforesaid  Income-tax consultant scrutinized the documents regarding Income-tax return of the complainant and they collected the entire information from the opposite party bank, scrutinized/investigated the entire matter and they charged Rs. 33000/- from the complainant as professional fee vide receipt Ex.C-16 dated 1.9.2012 and they found that the opposite party bank had given wrong information to the Income-tax Department regarding the cash deposit of Rs. 21,81,000/- in the saving account of the complainant during financial year 2007-08. The complainant lodged complaint with the opposite party bank on 30.8.2012 and the opposite party bank vide letter dated 31.8.2012 Ex.C-12 admitted their fault and regretted that they have supplied the wrong information to the Income-tax Department and took plea stating that they have filed correct statement to the Income-tax department in the subsequent periods. Opposite party in their written version also admitted that at the time of filing of AIR (Annual Information Return) on August 31,2008. The opposite party inadvertently reported cash deposit of Rs. 21,81,000/- in the account bearing No. 54310135810 in the name of complainant Bhagwan Singh. However, in order to rectify the same a supplementary return was duly filed on August 12,2009 u/s 285BA of Income-Tax Act 1961 read with rule 114E. Supplementary return was filed for deleting Rs. 21,81,000/- transaction and requesting to consider only Rs.10,60,000/- which was the actual cash deposited during the period 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008 by the complainant. Due to this wrong information given by the opposite party  regarding the monthly transaction made by the complainant in his aforesaid saving account with the  opposite party bank to the Income-tax department i.e. transaction of Rs. 21,81,000/- whereas infact there was transaction of only Rs. 10,60,000/- in the aforesaid account of the complainant during the period 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008 as admitted by the opposite party in their written version. The Income-tax department issued letter dated 7.3.2012 Ex.C-1 to the complainant to explain these queries regarding such a huge transaction. The complainant being very old and Sr. citizen of the age 91 years could not handle/deal with monthly transaction and that too of about 5 years back, so he had to take the services of M/s. B.D. Bansal & Co., Auditors and Income-tax Consultants, who charged Rs. 33000/- from the complainant to solve and explain the aforesaid queries and ultimately it was found that all this happened due to lapse/wrong information given by the opposite party bank to the Income-tax Department regarding the transaction made by the complainant in his aforesaid saving bank account during the period from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008. The complainant at this stage had been put under harassment, mental agony as the matter was serious relating to Income-tax. No doubt the opposite party settled this dispute with the Income-tax Department after such a long period and all this happened due to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
9. Consequently we hold that the complainant is entitled to claim of Rs. 33000/- which he had spent for getting the aforesaid Income-tax notice withdrawn by the Income-tax Department due to wrong information supplied by the opposite party bank to the Income-tax Department.
10. Resultantly we partly allow the complaint with costs and the opposite party is directed to pay this amount of Rs. 33000/- to the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10000/- to the complainant and litigation expenses Rs. 2000/-. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
11.  Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated:11.3.2015.                                                (Bhupinder Singh)

                                                                             President                                                                                                            

                                 (Anoop Sharma)              (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)

                                      Member                      Member