As these writ petitions involve a common issue, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are employees of Co-operative Banks and they are stated to be aggrieved by orders passed by the Income Tax Officer (TDS) under Sections 201 and 201 (1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the “IT Act”. The facts in both the writ petitions would indicate that, in respect of deductions claimed under Section 80C of the IT Act, the respondent authorities under the IT Act had taken a stand that contributions made to the provident fund in terms of the Co-operative Societies Act, would not qualify for exemption under Section 80C of the IT Act since the said provident fund was not a recognised provident fund for the purposes of the IT Act. The orders that were passed by the Income Tax Officer, against the employer Co-operative W.P.(C).NO.17231/2010 & 2 W.P.(C).NO.19003/2010 Banks, were essentially orders that treat the employer Bank as an assessee in default for not effecting adequate deduction of tax at source from payments that were made to the employees. In that view of the matter, the orders passed were against the employer Co-operative Banks, and not against the employees thereof. The employees of the said Banks are not persons who have the locus standi to challenge the said orders through writ petitions preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. It is also clear from the statement filed on behalf of the Income Tax authorities, that the contributions made were to unrecognised provident funds and therefore, would not qualify for the deductions contemplated under Section 80C of the IT Act. The stand of the Income Tax authorities, being in accordance with the provisions of the IT Act, cannot be said to be illegal. If the orders are to be challenged, it is the employer banks who have to impugn the orders passed against them under the IT Act, since the orders have the effect of treating them as assessees in default for the purposes of the IT Act. The petitioners are not affected by the orders passed against the W.P.(C).NO.17231/2010 & 3 W.P.(C).NO.19003/2010 employer bank and, at any rate, even if any tax is deducted from payments made to them by the employer, credit of the same would be given to them in their individual assessments under the IT Act. It would also be open to the petitioners to claim, in their assessment proceedings, that their contributions to the provident fund would qualify for deduction from taxable income under the IT Act.
In the light of the above observations, the writ petitions, in their challenge against the orders passed against the employers of the petitioners, are dismissed as not maintainable.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp