DATE OF FILING- 25.10.2011
DATE OF DISPOSAL- 22.7.2014
O R D E R
Mrs.M.Pradhan,Member
The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant had invested a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) with the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 i.e. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘SICCL’) under the scheme viz.Sahara Rajat Yojana. After maturity of the certificate she surrendered it for getting the maturity value. The maturity value of the scheme was Rs.20,760/-. But the SICCL paid only Rs.19,684/- as maturity proceeds on 27.9.2010 by deducting Rs.1076/- towards TDS from the total maturity value. The complainant alleges that she had submitted Form No.15-G with the SICCL to restrain them to deduct any amount towards TDS, but they have not considered it. It is further claimed by the complainant that if any amount is
-2-
deducted towards TDS, the SICCL should have to issue Form No.16-A within 15 days of the corresponding quarter end i.e. on or before 15.10.2010. In this regard, the complainant has made several correspondences followed by a Notice dt.2.6.2011, but the SICCL did not send the above Form No.16A as a result of which she could not get refund the TDS deducted from her surrender value. Finally, after filing of the present case, the SICCL supplied the Form No.16A on 13.6.2012. It is, therefore, claimed by the complainant that there is gross negligence on the part of the Opposite Party No.1,2 and 3(SICCL) and thereby put her to mental agony and financial loss. It is, thus, claimed that as per Rule 272(A)(2) of I.T. Act and Rules, there will be imposition of penalty at the rate of Rs.100/- per each day of default of issuing Form No.16A beyond 30th April of succeeding year. She further claims Rs.4,000/- towards compensation for the harassment caused to her due to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. In support of her case, the complainant has filed certain documents which are placed on record.
2- The Opposite Party No.1 to 3 put their appearance through learned counsel and filed the written version wherein it is submitted that the maturity amount against her investment under Sahara Rajat Yojana was Rs.20,760/- and out of the said maturity amount a sum of Rs.19,684/- was remitted to her by deducting Rs. 1076/- as Tax Deducted at Source(TDS). The Opposite Party No.1 to 3 further submitted that the copy of Form No.16A was supplied with endorsement to the complainant on 18.10.2011 and she filed this case on 25.10.2011 with a prayer to supply again a copy of the Form No.16A by suppressing this material fact. However, the copy of the Form No.16A was also delivered to the authorized representative of the complainant on 16.5.2012 under due acknowledgement. It is submitted that there is no cause of action or merit in the complaint of the complainant for which it is liable for dismissal with cost.
3- On the date of hearing, we heard the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3. The complainant was absent on the date of hearing. Therefore, the case was taken up on the basis of written arguments and documents filed by the complainant as well as the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 3 on record. The Opposite Party No.4 is absent on call. We have also gone through the case in detail. It is not disputed that the complainant had invested with the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3(SICCL) a sum of Rs.10,000/- under Sahara Rajat Yojana . The maturity value of the said scheme was Rs.20,760/-. The SICCL remitted a sum of Rs.19,684/- by deducting Rs.1076/- towards TDS as per provision of Income-tax Act. The complainant received the TDS deduction
-3-
in Form-16A on 18.10.2011. It is the claim of the complainant that as per Rule 272(A)(2) of I.T.Act, a sum of Rs.100/- per day can be imposed for each day of default of issue of Form No.16(A) beyond the 30th April of succeeding year. Accordingly, we have gone through the Rule 272 (2) of the Income Tax Act as filed on record, wherein it is stipulated in Clause(c) of Rule 272(2) that “any person who fails to furnish in due time any of the returns, statements or particulars mentioned in Section 133 or Section 206 or Section 285B, he shall be liable to pay by way of penalty a sum of one hundred rupees for every day during which the failure continues, provided that the amount of penalty for failures in relation to a declaration mentioned in Section 197A,a certificate as required by Section 203 and returns under Sec.206 and 206C and statements under sub-section(3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section(3) of section 206(C) shall not be exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible as the case may be”. It is further provides in Rule 272(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act that in a case where the contravention, failure or default in respect of which such penalty is imposable occurs in the course of any proceeding before an income-tax authority not lower in rank than a Joint Director or a Joint Commissioner, by such income-tax authority.
4- From the above income tax rules, we are clear that the penalty can be imposed for default in providing Form 16A or any other failure, as the case may be, by the Income Tax Authority in the course of proceeding against the defaulter. Therefore, the complainant instead of filing his claim before this Forum, was required to move his complaint to the concerned Income Tax authorities. Hence, this Forum lacks jurisdiction to interfere in the matter of failure or delay in remitting Form-16 to the complainant.
5- In the result, in our considered opinion, the instant consumer complaint filed by the complainant does bear any merit for which we dismiss the instant consumer complaint. Parties are to bear their own cost. Copy of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me on this 22nd day of July,2014
I AGREE(MEMBER) MEMBER
(Dr.N.Tuna Sahu) ( Mrs.Minati Pradhan)
