9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding before the forum alleging deficiency in service against the respondents/opposite parties in the matter of payment of matured value of certain fixed deposits lying with the concerned bank. The complainant's case is that he received Rs. 90,000 as sale proceeds by selling his only residential house and the land appurtaining to it at Barrackpore. According to the version of the complainant the transactions involved capital gains under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The entire amount was invested in accordance with the provisions of section 54E of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in two fixed deposits for a period of three years each. The said deposits were of Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 70,000 respectively deposited on December 22, 1990, and January 11, 1991. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accrued thereon. The complainant filed a complaint before the Calcutta District Forum for return of the said amount with penal interest and compensation. Initially the case was taken up for hearing on contest before the Calcutta District Forum and it was contended that they were guided by the guidelines of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India that the bank would not make payment against fixed deposit after maturity until submission of Form No. G along with the approval of the Assessing Officer. It was also agitated that the exemption limit under section 53 of the Income-tax Act against capital gain by sale of landed property was withdrawn with effect from April 1, 1993. The Calcutta District Forum after hearing both the parties, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty in the impugned order under challenge has adverted to the detailed delineation of the facts involved in the controversy. The complainant sold a residential house in the financial year 1990-91 for Rs. 90,000 and he deposited the sale proceeds in two separate accounts of Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 70,000, respectively, on February 20, 1990, and January 11, 1991. Both the deposits were term deposits for a period of three years. The controversies stem as such deposits were made in capital gains accounts. The contention of the petitioner-bank is that the amounts were deposited under the previous Capital Gains Accounts Scheme, 1988, which was introduced by the Central Government by Notification No. G.S.R. 724(E), dated June 22, 1988. The scheme applie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all be exempted from income-tax under section 45 of the Income-tax Act. The same is the sine qua non of the premise, in the impugned order on the basis of which it was sought to be opined that the bank was proceeding on the basis of a profound misconception. It is also significant to mention that as the deposits made in the instant case were term deposits, the depositor was required to open a deposit account in terms of rule 4 of the Scheme. Rule 9 of the Scheme deals with the procedure for withdrawal from the account. As such, there is no system written in the term deposit. So, filing of Form No. G cannot be insisted upon. It is also necessary to make a passing reference to clause (vi) of Explanation I appended to subsection (1) of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
