Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1210 (JHR)

Anand Prakash v. United Bank Of India

2002-12-02

AMARESHWAR SAHAY, GURUSHARAN SHARMA

body2002
ORDER 1. The plaintiffs are appellants. They had opened different accounts in the United Bank of India, Jhumri Tilaiya Branch, Kodarma, details of which were given in Schedule A to the plaint. All those accounts, as claimed by the plaintiffs were joint accounts in the names of the different members of the family, of which admittedly the plaintiff No. 7, Bhanu Prakash Lal, son of late Durga Sharan Lal was the Karta. He was as as-sessee of Income Tax department and all the aforesaid joint family accounts were duly disclosed by him in voluntary disclosure in 1975 under Section 15(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was also accepted by the Commissioner of Income Tax for the assessment year 1976- 77. 2. The plaintiff No. 7 was assessed total amount of tax at Rs. 2,40,700/- and the department calculated the total outstanding dues at Rs. 2,52,750.45 paise, under Section 226(3) of the Act. On 27.3.1979 the Income Tax Officer sent notice to the United Bank of India, Jhumri Tilaiya Branch for recovery of the said amount. The Bank in compliance with the direction of the Income Tax Officer sent Bank Draft (Ext. A-7) of the said amount. 3. Subsequently, said assessment order was set aside in appeal. The Bank sent statement of accounts to the plaintiffs, deducting Rs. 25,275.45 paise, under the head premature withdrawal from the term deposits for being sent to the Income Tax Department. 4. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed Money Suit No. 16 of 1983 against the bank for recovery of the said amount of Rs. 25,588.60 paise. 5. The Bank contested the suit, inter alia, on the ground that it was duty bound under law to comply with the notice of the Income Tax Department and pay the said amount from the plaintiffs accounts lying with it. 6. The Court decreed the suit holding that though the bank was required to comply with the demand of Income Tax Officer, under Section 226(3) of the Act, but for that purpose the term deposits ought not to have been broken before the maturity and at best the bank could have attached the same till the period of maturity. 7. 6. The Court decreed the suit holding that though the bank was required to comply with the demand of Income Tax Officer, under Section 226(3) of the Act, but for that purpose the term deposits ought not to have been broken before the maturity and at best the bank could have attached the same till the period of maturity. 7. The United Bank of India filed First Appeal No. 15 of 1987(R) in this Court challenging the aforesaid decree dated 2.12.1986, passed in Money Suit No. 16 of 1983, which was allowed by judgment and decree dated 18.8.1992. The trial Courts judgment and decree was set aside and the suit was dismissed. Hence, the plaintiffs have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 8. The only question involved in the present appeal is as to whether on receipt, of notice under Section 223 of the Act, the bank was required to simply attach the plaintiffs amount lying in term deposits till their maturity or in terms of Section 226(3). The aforesaid amount was required to be sent forthwith. 9. In our opinion in compliance of the notice under Section 226(3) for the recovery of the Income Tax demand against the plaintiff No. 7, the bank was obliged to send the amount forthwith and as such the plaintiffs claim for recovery of the amount which was deducted by the bank, under the head premature withdrawal was not justified. 10. UnderSection 226(3)(i) of the Act the Assessing Officer is empowered to send notice in writing to any person from whom money was due or to any person who held money for or on account of the assessee to pay the same forthwith. Further Sub-section 3(iv) of Section 226 provides that the banking-Company, on behalf of the assessee, to whom such notice is issued, is bound to comply with such notice. 11. In our opinion, therefore, the plaintiffs were not justified in asking for recovery of the amount which was deducted by the Bank from their account, under the head premature withdrawal for the purpose of payment of demand of the Income Tax Officer against the plaintiff No. 7, who was Karta of the joint family. 12. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Single Judge in the First Appeal. 13. There is no merit in this Appeal. It is dismissed, but without, costs.