2003 (9) TMI 39 - HC - Income Tax

Claim for damages - damages for initiating an enquiry - After the expiry of the effect of the prohibitory order, the plaintiff should have vindicated his right and indeed a writ petition was filed about three years after the expiry of the prohibitory order Thus, neither the State nor its officers can be held liable to pay damages for initiating an enquiry into the source of deposits and issuing a prohibitory order during the pendency of the enquiry - In so far as payment of interest on the fixed deposit amounts by virtue of the prohibitory order, the banks have withheld the amount - Appellant is entitled to claim interest from the banks from the date of maturity till payment at contract rate

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim of damages against Income-tax Officers.
2. Claim of interest from banks from the date of maturity till payment.

Analysis:
1. Claim of damages against Income-tax Officers:
The appellant filed a suit seeking damages of Rs. 50,000 from defendants, including Income-tax Officers, for withholding his fixed deposit amounts and causing inconvenience. The Income-tax Officers had issued prohibitory orders to banks, restraining payment to the plaintiff, suspecting the deposits as escaped income. The appellant alleged malicious and arbitrary actions by the Income-tax Officers, causing harassment and loss. However, the court held that the officers acted within their jurisdiction under the Income-tax Act to investigate the source of deposits. The delay in proceedings and actions taken were deemed legally justifiable. The court ruled that the officers cannot be held liable for damages as they were acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and within their statutory powers.

2. Claim of interest from banks from the date of maturity till payment:
The appellant also claimed interest on the fixed deposit amounts withheld by the banks due to the prohibitory orders issued by the Income-tax Officers. The court noted that the banks had withheld the amounts beyond the maturity date and were obligated to pay interest at the contract rate until actual payment. It was observed that the banks had paid interest from the date of deposit until maturity but failed to pay interest post-maturity due to the prohibitory orders. The court directed Canara Bank, Tamil Nadu Transport Development Financial Corporation Ltd., and Karnataka Bank to pay interest on the fixed deposit amounts from the date of maturity till actual payment, in accordance with the contract rate and subject to fluctuations directed by the Reserve Bank. The court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the appellate court's judgment and instructing the banks to pay the accrued interest to the appellant, along with costs.