This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay for `10,000  as the balance prize money without deducting the tax and the cost  of this litigation.

          The complainant’s case in brief is as follows: Complainant is the chital No.29 of the Pravasi Bandhu chitty which was started on January 2011 by KSFE. KSFE offered to the winners of chital one car as the first price and up and down air ticket as second price. The complainant was winner of the second price. On request he was given money instead of ticket. But he was given only `22,000 instead of `32,000 after deducting 30% income tax. He understands that there is no gift tax up to `50,000.More over there is no provision to realize tax for Air ticket. He is entitled for the full prize money. Hence this complaint.

          Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version denying the main allegation of the complainant. Admitting other things opposite party contended that KSFE deducted 30% of the cost of the Air ticket as per the provisions of Income tax Act.

          Herein, the only question that arises for consideration is whether or not the complainant was liable to pay the tax. Ext.B1 is the certificate of deduction of Tax at source under section 203 of the Income Tax act 1961. The certificate makes it clear that an amount of `10,053 has been deducted at source and paid in the name of complainant to the credit of the central Govt. on 13^th September 2011. Details of payment, tax deduction and deposit of Tax etc. are given in the certificate.

          Complainant did not challenge the payment of tax by opposite party in the name of complainant for winning from Lottery Lucky vat(Non-company) So the  remittance of tax has been fully proved by Ext.B1. But as per law on gift tax ‘ any gift received in cash or kind exceeding `50,000 or purchase of movable or immovable property for inadequate is found in the hands of recipient as income tax from other source”. In short any gift received in cash or kind not exceeding `50,000 is not taxable as per new law of gift tax.  So deduction of `10,053 by opposite party from the gift amount is amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. So the opposite party is liable to pay the above said amount to complainant which was deducted by the opposite party as income tax. It is true that they have remitted the above said amount to income tax department in the name of the complainant. But they can withdraw the amount from the I.T department as per law and the complainant has to co-operate with KSFE for taking necessary steps for withdrawing the amount. Any way the opposite party is liable to pay `10,053 to the complaint. The complaint is also entitled to get `1000 as cost of the proceedings and order passed accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay `10,053 (Rupees Ten Thousand and Fifty three only) as balance gift amount which was deducted by opposite party by way of income tax along with  `1000 (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant can execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection Act.     

                      Sd/-                     Sd/-       Sd/-

President                Member     Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1. Copy of Visa

A2.Copy of the letter sent to OP

Exhibits for the opposite party:

B1.Certificte of deductin of Tx at source under section 2663 of the Income Tax Act 1961

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1. Complainant

Witness examined for the opposite parties: Nil

                                                          /forwarded by order/

                                                          Senior Superintendent

Consumer disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.