CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Room No.308, B wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01389
Appellant: Shri Sanjay Bhardwaj
Public Authority: Income Tax Officer Ward 46(3), New Delhi
(through Ms. Vandana Ramachandran, Joint CIT (AA),
Ms. Tripta Grover, ITO & Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Ward 46(4) ITO)
Date of Hearing: 28/01/2009
Date of Decision: 28/01/2009
FACTS:- By his letter of 019/05/2008, the Appellant had requested for information on the following 11 points:-
“1. Whether any investigations/assessments are initiated/made on the TEP application submitted by the undersigned.
2. Whether my Father-in-law Shri Ashwini Kumar Bhardwaj, Mother-in-law, my wife Smt. Anjali Bhardwaj has ever filed any income tax return mentioning the details of source of alleged money and alleged costly items ever given by them in marriage and after marriage of their daughter as admitted in wiriting in their List submitted with TEP and also for maintaining other luxuries of life.
3. Whether my Father-in-law Shri Ashwini Kumar Bhardwaj, Mother-in-law, my wife Smt. Anjali Bhardwaj has ever filed any income tax return mentioning the expenditures of alleged money and alleged costly items in the relevant financial year ITR given by them in marriage and after marriage of their daughter as admitted in writing in their List submitted with TEP and also for maintaining other luxuries of life.
4. Whether Smt. Anjali Bhardwaj has any valid source of income/employment for her lavish lifestyle and what are these sources.
5. Whether they have paid income tax & wealth tax on there alleged cash/jewelry expenses.
6. Whether the persons mentioned above are liable for any action against them for tax evasion(income tax, wealth tax, etc) as per rule and kindly give the brief details of recovery efforts/punishments that can be awarded for violating the rule in above cases.
7. Kindly intimate the action initiated/taken by your department against the persons mentioned above and the amount of Tax recovered/expected to be recovered from them.
8. Kindly provide a copy of the preliminary assessments/investigations.
9. I therefore request your kind self to provide us copies of the returns of income filed along with balance sheets, income and expenditure statements from start financial year 1st April 2000 to financial year 31st March 2008 end of my wife & in-laws.
10. Whether my wife & my in laws have been able to justify the source of funds & also the flow of funds utilized to make all these alleged expenses/purchases.
11. Whether my wife & my in laws have been able to justify the source of funds & also the flow of funds utilized for all the cash payments alleged by them.”
2. Smt. Tripta Grover, ITO Ward 46(3), vide her letter dated 07/07/2008, had refused to disclose information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, on the ground that it related to a third party. On Appeal, the AA, vide order dated 05/08/2008, had upheld the decision of CPIO.
3. The present Appeal has been directed against the order of the CPIO and the AA.
4. The matter was heard on 05/01/2009 but the hearing could not be completed and the matter was adjourned to 28/01/2009. As scheduled, the hearing resumed today dated 28/01/2009. The Appellant is present before the Commission. The Public Authority is represented by the officers named above. Before I deal with the RTI application, a brief background of the matter would be in order. The Appellant was married to Anjali Bhardwaj in 2007. Differences arose between the two and they started living separately. Anjali Bhardwaj got a case registered vide FIR No.902/2007 at Police Station, Mehrauli, South District, Delhi, u/s 498A/406 IPC wherein she alleged that the Appellant and members of his family had demanded and accepted a huge dowry in terms of diamond/ gold/silver ornaments and cash etc. of about Rs. 31 lacs. Besides, Anjali Bhardwaj also instituted a case against the Appellant and the members of his family u/s 12 of the Protection of Women & Domestic Violence Act, 2005. During the hearing, the Appellant would submit that he has sought the information enumerated in para 1 above to defend himself in the above mentioned two cases. He has also drawn my attention to the Delhi High Court order dated 03/12/2007 in Bhagat Singh Vs. Central Information Commission, wherein it has been held that the Income Tax Department may disclose information relating to the action taken by it in Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) etc. It is, however, noteworthy that the High Court has nowhere laid down that contents of the Income Tax Returns filed by the opposite party should be disclosed to the Appellant. To this, the Appellant would submit that he would not insist on the disclosure of contents of the ITRs filed by Ashwini Kumar Bhardwaj, Anjali Bhardwaj and his mother-in-law, and that he would be satisfied if the Income Tax Authorities disclose to him information limited to the filing or non-filing of Income Tax Returns by the above mentioned persons.
5. Ms. Vandana Ramachandran submits that she has no objection to the disclosure of information limited to filing or non-filing of Income Tax Returns by the father-in-law, mother-in-law and wife of the Appellant during last five years, starting from 2003.
6. The Appellant also wants to know whether on his TEP the Income Tax Authorities had initiated any action. Ms. Ramachandran submits that she has also no objection to inform the Appellant as to whether any action has been initiated on the TEP filed by the Appellant.
DECISION 7. In view of the above, Ms. Vandana Ramachandran (AA) is hereby directed to disclose the above mentioned information to the Appellant within two weeks time.
8. The matter is disposed of subject to the above directions.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.L. Das)
Assistant Registrar
Tele: 011 2671 73 53
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01389
Appellant: Shri Sanjay Bhardwaj
Public Authority: Income Tax Officer Ward 46(3), New Delhi
(through Ms. Vandana Ramachandran, Joint CIT (AA),
Ms. Tripta Grover, ITO & Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Ward 46(4) ITO)
Date of Hearing: 28/01/2009
Date of Decision: 28/01/2009
FACTS:- By his letter of 019/05/2008, the Appellant had requested for information on the following 11 points:-
“1. Whether any investigations/assessments are initiated/made on the TEP application submitted by the undersigned.
2. Whether my Father-in-law Shri Ashwini Kumar Bhardwaj, Mother-in-law, my wife Smt. Anjali Bhardwaj has ever filed any income tax return mentioning the details of source of alleged money and alleged costly items ever given by them in marriage and after marriage of their daughter as admitted in wiriting in their List submitted with TEP and also for maintaining other luxuries of life.
3. Whether my Father-in-law Shri Ashwini Kumar Bhardwaj, Mother-in-law, my wife Smt. Anjali Bhardwaj has ever filed any income tax return mentioning the expenditures of alleged money and alleged costly items in the relevant financial year ITR given by them in marriage and after marriage of their daughter as admitted in writing in their List submitted with TEP and also for maintaining other luxuries of life.
4. Whether Smt. Anjali Bhardwaj has any valid source of income/employment for her lavish lifestyle and what are these sources.
5. Whether they have paid income tax & wealth tax on there alleged cash/jewelry expenses.
6. Whether the persons mentioned above are liable for any action against them for tax evasion(income tax, wealth tax, etc) as per rule and kindly give the brief details of recovery efforts/punishments that can be awarded for violating the rule in above cases.
7. Kindly intimate the action initiated/taken by your department against the persons mentioned above and the amount of Tax recovered/expected to be recovered from them.
8. Kindly provide a copy of the preliminary assessments/investigations.
9. I therefore request your kind self to provide us copies of the returns of income filed along with balance sheets, income and expenditure statements from start financial year 1st April 2000 to financial year 31st March 2008 end of my wife & in-laws.
10. Whether my wife & my in laws have been able to justify the source of funds & also the flow of funds utilized to make all these alleged expenses/purchases.
11. Whether my wife & my in laws have been able to justify the source of funds & also the flow of funds utilized for all the cash payments alleged by them.”
2. Smt. Tripta Grover, ITO Ward 46(3), vide her letter dated 07/07/2008, had refused to disclose information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, on the ground that it related to a third party. On Appeal, the AA, vide order dated 05/08/2008, had upheld the decision of CPIO.
3. The present Appeal has been directed against the order of the CPIO and the AA.
4. The matter was heard on 05/01/2009 but the hearing could not be completed and the matter was adjourned to 28/01/2009. As scheduled, the hearing resumed today dated 28/01/2009. The Appellant is present before the Commission. The Public Authority is represented by the officers named above. Before I deal with the RTI application, a brief background of the matter would be in order. The Appellant was married to Anjali Bhardwaj in 2007. Differences arose between the two and they started living separately. Anjali Bhardwaj got a case registered vide FIR No.902/2007 at Police Station, Mehrauli, South District, Delhi, u/s 498A/406 IPC wherein she alleged that the Appellant and members of his family had demanded and accepted a huge dowry in terms of diamond/ gold/silver ornaments and cash etc. of about Rs. 31 lacs. Besides, Anjali Bhardwaj also instituted a case against the Appellant and the members of his family u/s 12 of the Protection of Women & Domestic Violence Act, 2005. During the hearing, the Appellant would submit that he has sought the information enumerated in para 1 above to defend himself in the above mentioned two cases. He has also drawn my attention to the Delhi High Court order dated 03/12/2007 in Bhagat Singh Vs. Central Information Commission, wherein it has been held that the Income Tax Department may disclose information relating to the action taken by it in Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) etc. It is, however, noteworthy that the High Court has nowhere laid down that contents of the Income Tax Returns filed by the opposite party should be disclosed to the Appellant. To this, the Appellant would submit that he would not insist on the disclosure of contents of the ITRs filed by Ashwini Kumar Bhardwaj, Anjali Bhardwaj and his mother-in-law, and that he would be satisfied if the Income Tax Authorities disclose to him information limited to the filing or non-filing of Income Tax Returns by the above mentioned persons.
5. Ms. Vandana Ramachandran submits that she has no objection to the disclosure of information limited to filing or non-filing of Income Tax Returns by the father-in-law, mother-in-law and wife of the Appellant during last five years, starting from 2003.
6. The Appellant also wants to know whether on his TEP the Income Tax Authorities had initiated any action. Ms. Ramachandran submits that she has also no objection to inform the Appellant as to whether any action has been initiated on the TEP filed by the Appellant.
DECISION 7. In view of the above, Ms. Vandana Ramachandran (AA) is hereby directed to disclose the above mentioned information to the Appellant within two weeks time.
8. The matter is disposed of subject to the above directions.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.L. Das)
Assistant Registrar
Tele: 011 2671 73 53
No comments:
Post a Comment