R. MUTHUKRISHNAN Vs. MANAGER, CANARA BANK, NRI BRANCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), preferred by the Complainant, the short question for consideration is: whether both the Forums below were correct in holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Bank in deducting, a sum of Rs. 1,301/-, as Income tax at source at the time of renewal of Resident Foreign Currency (RFC) deposits ?

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the material facts giving rise to the aforestated controversy are that during the year 2003, the Petitioner/Complainant, a practicing Advocate, had made four RFC deposits with the Respondent in the status of and in the capacity as "Resident but not Ordinarily Resident". The deposits were renewed periodically upto the year 2005. On maturity, the bank deducted a sum of Rs. 1,301/-, equivalent of US$16.64 +GBP 6.30, in spite of the Petitioner requesting them not to deduct Income-tax, on the plea that being a non-resident, interest payable to him on these deposits did not form part of his total income in terms of Section 10 (15) (fa) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Petitioner's demand for refund of the said amount having been declined by the Bank, alleging deficiency in service, the Petitioner filed a complaint under the Act before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) (for short the "the District Forum"), inter-alia, praying for a direction to the Bank for refund of the said amount along with compensation of Rs. 90,000/-.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the Respondent on the ground that as per Section 6(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it existed at the relevant time, a person who has come back to India from abroad for permanent settlement can retain the status of "Not ordinarily Resident" in India only for a period of 2 years commencing from "the financial year in which such person returned to India" and therefore, the Petitioner could not claim the benefit of exemption from payment of Income Tax beyond the financial year 2003-04. Accepting the stand of the Bank, the District Forum dismissed the Complaint on the ground that in deducting tax at source, the Bank had discharged a statutory duty and therefore, there was no deficiency in service on their part. The Petitioner's Appeal having been dismissed by the State Commission, he is before us in this Petition.