CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2009/001113
Appellant: Shri Chetan Anand Parashar
Public Authority: Income Tax Department, Gaziabad
(through Shri J.K. Kale, ITO, Ward 1(3), Gaziabad)
Date of Hearing : 19.2.2010
Date of Decision : 19.2.2010
FACTS:
As per appellant, a false case of dowry demand etc has been got registered against him and members of his family by his wife, allegation being that his wife’s father had spent about Rs. 20 lacs in wedding etc. After due investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against him and members of his family. In this connection vide RTI application dated 1.5.2009, appellant had requested for a copy of ITRs’ filed by his wife’s father Shri Hari Ram Sharma. He also wanted to know outcome of TEP filed by him.
2. Vide order dated 18.5.2009, the CPIO had refused to disclose this information u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. The AA had affirmed the decision of CPIO vide order dated 23.6.2009.
3. The present appeal is directed against the above orders.
4. Heard on 19.2.2010. Appellant present along with his father Shri Tara Chand Sharma. Department is represented by officer named above. The parties are heard. It is vehement plea of the appellant that he and his family members have been falsely implicated in a criminal case and, therefore, he wants to have copies of the ITRs filed by his father-in-law to vindicate his position in the court of law.
5. It is, however, to be noted that a five member Bench of this Commission vide decision dated 15.6.2009 in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/00628 (Milap Choraria Vs CBDT) had held that Income Tax Returns are ‘personal information’ and, thus, exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act. The ratio of this decision squarely applies in present case. However, as regards outcome of TEP filed by appellant, this Commission has consistently held that outcome of TEP can not be denied to appellant only on ground that investigation is pending. Needless to say, investigation of TEP needs to be completed within a reasonable time frame and thereafter outcome thereof needs to be intimated to person who filed TEP so that he knows whether there is any substance in TEP filed by him or otherwise.
6. Shri Kale submits that investigation into TEP is not yet complete and is continuing. This is not an acceptable position. The investigation can not go on at infinitum and must reach a finality within a reasonable time frame.
DECISION
7. In view of above discussion, decisions of CPIO and AA in regard to non-disclosure of ITRs are upheld. Even so, the CPIO is directed to intimate outcome of TEP to appellant in 03 months time.
8. Before parting with the matter, we would like to mention that section 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure empowers a court or an officer in charge of a Police Station to seek production of any documents for the purpose of investigation, inquiry or trial etc, pending before such court or officer. It is open to the appellant to take resort to this provision, if he is so advised.
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
Address of parties :-
1. Shri J.K. Kale
ITO, Ward 1(3),
Income Tax Department,
Near Hapur Chungi,
Ghaziabad, UP.
2. Shri Chetan Anand Parasher
C/o Jayanti Devi,
House No RZ/LA-7,
Mahavir Enclave,
New Delhi-110045
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2009/001113
Appellant: Shri Chetan Anand Parashar
Public Authority: Income Tax Department, Gaziabad
(through Shri J.K. Kale, ITO, Ward 1(3), Gaziabad)
Date of Hearing : 19.2.2010
Date of Decision : 19.2.2010
FACTS:
As per appellant, a false case of dowry demand etc has been got registered against him and members of his family by his wife, allegation being that his wife’s father had spent about Rs. 20 lacs in wedding etc. After due investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against him and members of his family. In this connection vide RTI application dated 1.5.2009, appellant had requested for a copy of ITRs’ filed by his wife’s father Shri Hari Ram Sharma. He also wanted to know outcome of TEP filed by him.
2. Vide order dated 18.5.2009, the CPIO had refused to disclose this information u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. The AA had affirmed the decision of CPIO vide order dated 23.6.2009.
3. The present appeal is directed against the above orders.
4. Heard on 19.2.2010. Appellant present along with his father Shri Tara Chand Sharma. Department is represented by officer named above. The parties are heard. It is vehement plea of the appellant that he and his family members have been falsely implicated in a criminal case and, therefore, he wants to have copies of the ITRs filed by his father-in-law to vindicate his position in the court of law.
5. It is, however, to be noted that a five member Bench of this Commission vide decision dated 15.6.2009 in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/00628 (Milap Choraria Vs CBDT) had held that Income Tax Returns are ‘personal information’ and, thus, exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act. The ratio of this decision squarely applies in present case. However, as regards outcome of TEP filed by appellant, this Commission has consistently held that outcome of TEP can not be denied to appellant only on ground that investigation is pending. Needless to say, investigation of TEP needs to be completed within a reasonable time frame and thereafter outcome thereof needs to be intimated to person who filed TEP so that he knows whether there is any substance in TEP filed by him or otherwise.
6. Shri Kale submits that investigation into TEP is not yet complete and is continuing. This is not an acceptable position. The investigation can not go on at infinitum and must reach a finality within a reasonable time frame.
DECISION
7. In view of above discussion, decisions of CPIO and AA in regard to non-disclosure of ITRs are upheld. Even so, the CPIO is directed to intimate outcome of TEP to appellant in 03 months time.
8. Before parting with the matter, we would like to mention that section 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure empowers a court or an officer in charge of a Police Station to seek production of any documents for the purpose of investigation, inquiry or trial etc, pending before such court or officer. It is open to the appellant to take resort to this provision, if he is so advised.
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
Address of parties :-
1. Shri J.K. Kale
ITO, Ward 1(3),
Income Tax Department,
Near Hapur Chungi,
Ghaziabad, UP.
2. Shri Chetan Anand Parasher
C/o Jayanti Devi,
House No RZ/LA-7,
Mahavir Enclave,
New Delhi-110045
No comments:
Post a Comment