S Srinivasan vs Syndicate Bank on 18 October, 2019

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

S Srinivasan vs Syndicate Bank on 18 October, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 14.02.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 20.11.2017 and first appeal dated 26.12.2017:-

Page 1 of 5

(i) Please inform whether Banking Laws and principles of banking permits debit to a customer's account without his mandate, when there is no attachment order from any court or Income tax department particularly when the customer had specifically given a letter in writing not to account. If so, please provide me a copy of such law/act/rule.

(ii) Under which Law/Act/rule did the bank debit my account under the above circumstances? Please provide a copy of such Law/act/rule.

(iii) Does Income Tax Act/rules permit the employer to collect TDS previous years for which assessment of the individual is complete xxxxx assessment order issued? If so, please provide me a copy such Income tax Act/rules.

(iv) Please inform me under what Law/Act/rule, Bank has recovered TDS amount from me. Please provide me a copy the relevant Income tax Act/rules.

(v) Under which Income tax Law/act/rule bank has recovered interest from me for no fault of mine. Please provide me copy of the relevant Law/act/rule.

(vi) As the stay not to recover TDS is granted to AIBOC (parent body of SBOA of which we are members) and as the stay is against IBA (of which Syndicate Blank is a member Bank), is the stay applicable to Syndicate Bank or not?

(vii) Since Syndicate Bank has recovered TDS with interest from my account, in view of the above, does it not amount to contempt of court, as the Bank continues to withhold the amount recovered from me?

(viii) Syndicate Bank itself is contesting the claim of Income Tax department and has filed a Base in High court of Karnataka. In such a scenario, when the matter is sub judice, how can Syndicate Bank recover TDS interest from me and continue to hold it.

Page 2 of 5

(ix) Please provide a copy of the advice provided/proposed to be provided to CO:

Audit cell in this regard.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 20.11.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Syndicate Bank, Regional Office-II, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 23.11.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 26.12.2017. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 11.01.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 14.02.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 14.02.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the information was relating to unauthorized debiting from the accounts of 167 officers in a discriminatory and arbitrary manner. The CPIO had wrongly denied the information.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 23.11.2017 transferred the RTI application to Regional Office-II and Tax & Audit Cell, Corporate Office, Bangalore who replied vide letter dated 16.12.2017. The FAA dismissed the appeal and stated that the appellant had improved his query and sought law/act/rule.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Mrs Vasudha, Regional Manager and CPIO(1), Syndicate Bank, Bengaluru, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while drawing attention to the reply given by CPIO in their letter dated 16th December, 2017 and the 1st Appellate Authority order dated 11.1.2018 inter alia submitted that appellant had sought views/opinion of the CPIO(public authority) in Page 3 of 5 most of the queries They further submitted that the queries seeking advice/opinion do not fall within the definition of information under the provisions of 2(f) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, feels that due reply has already been given to the appellant. The appellant having remained absent and having not filed any objection or written submissions the averments made by the respondent are taken on record and the matter is heard ex parte. The Commission further feels that there is no public interest in prolonging the matter. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 17.10.2019 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. SYNDICATE BANK REGIONAL OFFICE-II (BENGALURU SOUTH), 1ST FLOOR, ANANDA BHAWAN, NETTAKALLAPA CIRCLE, MARKET ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004

2. THE C.P.I.O SYNDICATE BANK, AUDIT & TAX CELL, CORPORATE OFFICE, GANDHI NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, BENGALURU - 560 009 Page 4 of 5 THE F.A.A, SYNDICATE BANK, LEGAL DEPTT., HEAD OFFICE, MANIPAL - 576 104 S SRINIVASAN Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission