CHHAYA ROY vs CITI BANK

THE petitioners are the joint Account holders in respect of SB A/c No. 5-210601-009 with the opposite party.

THAT the statement submitted by the opposite party for the period from 1.1.1990 to 31.3.190 wherein a deduction of Rs. 9,945/- was shown in the said account and on enquiry by the opposite party, it transpired that the said amount was deducted from the account of the petitioners for payment of alleged taxes demanded by Tax Recovery Officer of the Income Tax Department. It is alleged that no copy of the said order issued by the Tax Recovery Officer, Income Tax Department was handed over to the petitioners.

It is also alleged that the account in question was a Joint Savings Bank Account and the petitioner No. 2 namely Sri Samarendra Nath Roy in whose account, the alleged arrears of the Income Tax was payable is not the exclusive holder of the said savings account and his wife a party to the account having an equal lien over the same.

IN the premises, the opposite party/ Bank is obliged to seek permission from the petitioner No. 1 who is one of the joint account holders and not liable for payment of the alleged arrear taxes and attachment of joint account and payment thereof without consent of the other joint account holder is serious deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The petitioner No. 2 wrote a letter dated 9th April, 1990 to the opposite party No. 2 to credit his account by said sum of Rs. 9,945/- which was arbitrarily deducted from the joint account of the petitioner.

IT is also the case of the petitioners that against the said illegal demand of arrear taxes by Tax Recovery Officer the petitioner No. 2 by depositing Rs. 4,000/- being 50% of the assessed taxes preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax Department and whereas the Tax Recovery Officer directed the bank to adjust the sum of Rs. 4,920/-being the cumulative amount arising out of a balance sum of Rs. 4,000/- plus interest, penalty etc. and the opposite party/Bank had deducted the sum of Rs. 9,920/- from the joint account of the petitioners. It is also the case of the petitioners that the appeal preferred by the petitioner No. 2 before the A.C./Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax Department who by his order dated 16.11.1990 granted some reliefs to the petitioner No. 2 on the basis of which it was decided that the actual Income Tax payable by the petitioner No. 2 would work out to Rs. 16,488/- and whereby it was wrongly assessed at Rs. 18,558/- In view of the payment of Rs. 27,461 /- on account of Income Tax by the petitioner No. 2 on different dates he was entitled to the refund of the sum of Rs. 10,992/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act for which the petitioner No. 2 already put his claim for refund of the same and the Income Tax Authority on or about 16th April, 1992 had informed the opposite party/ Bank that prohibitory order had been withdrawn as because the arrear of the petitioner No. 2 had been fully satisfied and a copy of that letter dated 16.4.1990 written by the opposite party/Bank has been made Annexure ''H'' to the petition of complaint. Thereafter the petitioners gave several reminders to the opposite party/Bank for crediting the amount of Rs. 9,920/- illegally and arbitrarily deducted from the joint account of the petitioners and the petitioners gave their last and final reminder on 13.5.93 to the opposite party/Bank who never replied that letter till filing of the complaint before the State Commission.

IT was contended by the petitioner that the opposite party/Bank had no authority to deduct and/or appropriate any money from joint account without informing the account holders or obtaining permission from them.

IT is further contended that the actions taken by the opposite party/Bank by way of deducting the sum of Rs. 9,920/- from joint account of the petitioner amounts to deficiency in service for which they are not only liable to credit the amount illegally deducted from the joint account of the petitioner but also liable for payment of compensation to the petitioners and demanded the sum of Rs. 1,02,000/- on account of compensation for illegal and arbitrary deduction of the said sum of Rs. 9,920/- from the joint account of the petitioner. The petitioners prayed for further reliefs and order or orders in accordance with law.

The opposite party contended the case by filing written statement inter alia contending that the petition of complaint is not maintainable in law as well as in fact and that the application is barred by principle of waiver and/or acquittance and the opposite party denies and dispute each and every allegations as contained in the petition of complaint except those which are specifically admitted by the opposite party.

IT is contended by the opposite party that the sum of Rs. 9,920/- was deducted from the account of the petitioner incompliance with the order communicated by letter dated 9.3.1990 issued by the Tax Recovery officer, XI, Calcutta and 24-Parganas to the opposite party, further a sum of Rs. 25/-was deducted byway of Bank charges and the said deductions were made after informing the petitioner the details of such deduction in course of banking business. The opposite party/Bank further contended that the statement of account are always mailed to the customers on quarterly basis wherein transactions during a particular quarter is reflected /displayed therein and the purpose of sending such quarterly statement to the account holders are for verifying the transaction for the quarter and if any discrepancy is found then the matter is to be referred to the Bank within reasonable time.

THE petitioner /complainant was informed over phone that it was the responsibility of the as sessee and the Tax Recovery Officer to refund any excess payment or adjust such excess payment made to Tax Recovery Officer, therefore, it was not the bank''s responsibility for making any such refund. The opposite party/Bank contended that it fully complied with the provisions of Income Tax Act inasmuch as that the opposite party/Bank complied the notice dated 9.3.1990 issued by the Tax Recovery Officer. The opposite party/Bank contended that the Sections on its part by deducting the sum of Rs. 9,920/- from the joint account of the petitioner is lawful and in consonant with the provisions of Income Tax Act and submitted the xerox copies of relevant provisions of Income Tax Act alongwith the written objection.

THE opposite party/Bank prayed for dismissal of the Complaint with compensatory cost. DECISION

IT is admitted that the sum of Rs. 9,920/-was deducted from the joint account of the petitioner as per Demand Notice dated 9.3.1990 issued by the Tax Recovery Officer, XI Calcutta and 24-Parganas for recovery of Income Tax of the petitioner No. 2. As no authority or law was placed before us to show that deduction from joint account for the debt of one of the joint account holders without permission of other is illegal even in the case of Government Order for such attachment & deduction, we are unable to accept the views of the petitioners that it was illegal. The contention of the petitioner No. 2 is that his total Income Tax was assessed at Rs. 16,488/- by the Appellate Authority of the Income Tax Department and the petitioner No. 2 paid Rs. 27,460/- including the sum of Rs. 9,920/- collected from the joint account of the petitioners by the Tax Recovery Officer, XI.

Accordingly, the petitioner No. 2 is entitled to refund to the sum of Rs. 10,992/- plus interest as per provisions under Section 244(A) of the Income Tax Act at the rate of 18% p.a.

THE opposite party/Bank acted as per order of the Income Tax Authority under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. So, there is no commission of error or wrong on the part of the opposite party/Bank, although the Income Tax payable by the petitioner No. 2 was far less than the actual amount paid by him. As per provisions of Income Tax Act, the excess payment made on account of Income Tax than the assessed amount the assessee is entitled to refund such excess amount including interest thereon. So the petitioner No. 2 can claim the refund of the excess amount paid than the actual amount of Income Tax payable as per assessment together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on such excess amount paid by him. THErefore, the opposite party/Bank has no responsibility in the matter of refunding the excess payment of Income Tax than the assessed amount. THE information about deduction of Rs. 9,920/- to be made from joint account was given to the opposite party/Bank through the quarterly statement of transactor submitted in this regard. In the facts and circumstances stated above we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/ Bank neither there is any negligence on the part of it.

HENCE, the complaint petition is dismissed on contest without any order as to the cost. Complaint dismissed.