DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 76  of 2021.

 

 

Sri Haradhan Sarkar,

S/O- Lt. Sarada Charan Sarkar,

Ahkaura Road,

P.O. Ramnanagar- 799002,

District- West Tripura. .........................Complainant.

 

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

 

The Branch Manager,

Punjab National Bank (Previous it was UBI),

Agartala Branch,

Hariganga Basak Road, Usha Market,

P.O. Agartala- 799002,

P.S. West Agartala,

District- West Tripura. ......................... Opposite Party.

 

 

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

(MEMBER PRESIDING)

  DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant :  In person.

 

For the Opposite Party : Sri Loknath Datta,

`   Learned Advocate.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 01.08.2022

 

J U D G M E N T

          The instant case arose on the complaint filed by Sri Haradhan Sarkar, S/O- Lt. Sarada Charan Sarkar, Akhaura Road, Ramnagar (here-in-after referred to as ‘Complainant’) against the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Agartala Branch (here-in-after referred to as ‘O.P. Bank’) U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2. The case, in brief, is that the Complainant has been operating a Savings Bank Account (No.0258010442206) with the O.P. Bank for the purpose of drawing monthly pension from the Government, since 2008. It is alleged by the Complainant that during the year 2018, it came to his notice that his account was debited @ Rs. 504/- on 9 occasions dated 01.11.2017, 01.12.2017, 01.01.2018, 01.02.2018, 01.03.2018, 01.04.2018, 02.05.2018, 02.06.2018 and 03.07.2018 aggregating an amount of Rs.4,536/-, mentioning the purpose against all such debit transactions as ‘Tax Deduction Act Source (TDS)’. It is also alleged that despite submission of 15H form by him, the O.P. Bank went on with their continual deducting TDS from his account. It is further alleged that the amounts so deducted as TDS were not uploaded with the Income Tax (IT) Authority for taking credit by him. Due to that, the Complainant was unable to show such TDS deductions in the income tax return for the period of 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. He took up the matter with the bank by making series of communications on different dates but the bank did not pay any heed to his written complaints. The Complainant, therefore, submitted that the bank has caused deficiency in rendering service to him and which is why he suffered mental agony, harassment and financial loss. He submitted before the Commission to direct the O.P. bank to refund of Rs.4,536/- with progressive interest with effect from 01.11.2017, a compensation amounting to Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and harassment and the cost of litigation.

Hence this case.

 

3. O.P. Bank contested the case by filing written statement whereby they have refuted and disproved all the charges made by the complainant in respect of deduction of TDS by them. The charge of non-deposition of TDS amounts has been invalidated by submitting that the deduction of TDS amount from time to time could not be uploaded into the income tax portal for want of Permanent Account Number (PAN) of the complainant. As submitted, though the O.P. Bank has requested the Complainant many a times to furnish the PAN but to no avail. It is also submitted by the O.P. Bank that the Complainant could have approached to the IT authority instead of Consumer Commission had they been any grievance regarding non-deposition of tax with the Government i.e., IT Authority.

 

4. The Complainant submitted his evidence by way of examination-in-chief on affidavit. But the O.P. Bank has submitted by way of a petition that they would not like to adduce evidence in connection with the case.

 

5. The arguments made by the parties are as follows:

It is submitted by the Complainants that the TDS amounts, as deducted by the O.P. Bank, @ Rs. 504/- for 9 occasions aggregating an amount of Rs.4536/- were not deposited by the O.P. Bank with the Government and as a result, he could not take the credit of such TDS deductions while filing his IT returns during the years 2018-19 and 2019-20. He also contended that such TDS deductions were made despite his submission of 15H form to O.P. Bank. It is also submitted that O.P. Bank did not respond to his communications made with them from time to time seeking explanations and redressal of his grievances and, therefore, such irregularity caused due to non-deposition of TDS amounts and inaction to respond to the communications made thereof by O.P. Bank is a deficiency of service. Thus, he is entitled to get refund of the TDS amounts along with compensation and litigation costs.

  Conversely, the O.P. Bank submitted that the deducted TDS amounts could not be uploaded into the IT portal for want of PAN of the Complainant. The complainant was advised verbally on various occasions to submit the PAN by O.P. Bank but with no result. It is also strongly placed by the O.P. Bank that resolving this dispute essentially comes under the purview of the IT Authority. It is also placed that there have been specific provisions to deal with such matter under IT Act. Therefore, the Complainant has not approached to the right place for redressal of his grievances and instead, the Complainant could have approached to the IT Authority for redressal of his grievances, if any.   

 

6. We have heard the argument of both sides and traveled over the documents adduced by the Complainant. It is observed from the documents that TDS amounts had been debited from the account, in question, on different occasions but these TDS deductions did not appear in the Annual Tax Statement i.e., Form 26 AS, generated by the IT Portal and so submitted by the Complainant. It is also true that several communications with the O.P. Bank had been initiated by the Complainant but these were remained un-responded.

 

7. Now while appreciating the various aspects of the case, we have a considered view that this is a dispute among the assessee-deductee, deductor and the jurisdictional assessing officer of IT. The payer (deductor) is liable for making payment of certain specified nature, is required to deduct TDS and the amount of TDS, so deducted, is required to be deposited with the Government within the specified due dates. The payer deducts TDS and deposit the same with the Government at the behest of the IT Authority. The payer’s liability for deducting of TDS and timely deposition of the same with the Government is in pursuance of the specific provisions of the IT Act, 1961.

 

8. In view of the position as mentioned in the para 6 above, we are of the view that the aggrieved person, the Complainant, should have approached to the IT Authority for the mismatch of tax credit in Form 26 AS for redressal of his grievances, as there has been a provision of section 271 C of the IT Act. which specifically and explicitly deals with the particulars of  penal interest and levying penalty in case of defaulting by a deductor to upload/deposit the TDS amount within the due dates. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Commission does not require to interfere in regards to the complaint filed by the complainant, as specific provisions under IT Act, 1961 are in place for dealing with the issues of delayed/ non-deposition of TDS amount by the deductor.  Having viewed so, we also consider that the Complainant is at a liberty to approach to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer of IT for appropriate remedies.

 

 

9. The case, accordingly, is disposed of with no order as to cost. Supply copy of the judgment to both the parties free of cost.

 

 

        Announced.

 

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  

(MEMBER PRESIDING)

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.