Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Challenging the impugned order, by which the complaint case filed by the Appellant has been dismissed by the Ld. District Forum, this Appeal is filed.

The grievance of the Appellant against the Respondent is that the latter, against his wish, deducted TDS in respect of some of his matured deposits from the proceeds of one short term fixed deposit that he encashed prematurely. 

In this regard, both sides were heard and available documents on record gone through.

It appears that the Appellant submitted one 15G Form to the Respondent Bank on 26-02-2015.  There can be no manner of doubt that it was purposely done by him to avoid the cumbersome process of claiming refund of deducted tax from the Income Tax Department in accordance with law. 

In further appears that, on the very same day, i.e., on 26-02-2015, the Appellant lodged one written complaint with the Respondent protesting against deduction of TDS from the proceeds of one short term fixed deposit.  Subsequently, another letter was submitted on 05-06-2015. 

According to Income Tax Rules and Regulations, no tax is deductable unless the aggregate amount of interest during the financial year exceeds Rs. 5,000/-.  No such case is made out from the end of the Respondent that the interest component in respect of various deposits of the Appellant exceeded that threshold limit. 

Further, according to Income Tax Rules and Regulations, tax cannot be deducted if any resident Indian furnishes 15G Form thereby declaring that his income is below the exemption limit. 

Above all, tax deducted during the month of April to February is required to be paid to the credit of the Government on or before 7 days from the end of the month in which tax is deducted. No such documentary proof is forthcoming before us to suggest that the deducted tax was instantly remitted to the credit of the Central Government by the Respondent. 

In view of this, we find it quite baffling that, acting on the wish of the Appellant, the Respondent did not refund the TDS amount. 

Whether subsequently the Appellant got refund of the deducted tax amount from the Tax Authorities following due procedure or not is altogether a different issue.  What worries us the most is that, the Bank did not honour the wish of one of its customers.  This is not acceptable.

The Respondent was definitely guilty of deficiency in service.  Accordingly, we allow this Appeal, albeit in part. 

Respondent is directed to pay compensation and litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,000/-, respectively, to the Appellant.  Respondent shall ensure strict compliance of this order within 40 days hence, i.d., Appellant shall be at liberty to execute the order in accordance with law.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.