P.N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member—Heard Advocate Anand Kulkarni for appellant(Org. Opposite Party). Respondent(Org. Complainant) is absent though duly served.

2. A very short issue is involved in this appeal, i.e. whether the bank who has transmitted certain amount as per requisition sent by income tax authorities under Section 226(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 is liable to repay to the said amount to the Consumer and whether the bank can without intimation to the Consumer or Customer transmit that amount to the income tax authorities and whether in not intimating, there was any deficiency in service on the part of Bank. The Forum below held that the Bank was deficient in service though action of the bank was legal and convincing. The Forum below found fault in the action of the bank in not giving any prior intimation to the Customer of the Bank, when an amount of Rs.39,403 was withdrawn and transmitted to the income tax authorities from the account of the complainant. An amount of Rs.39,403 which was lying with the bank was belonging to the respondent. Notice was issued by income tax authorities under Section 226(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 asking the bank to transmi