CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2009/01014
Appellant: Shri Brij Ballabh Singh
Public Authority: DGIT (Inv), Lucknow
Date of Hearing: 1.1.2010
Date of Decision: 1.1.2010
FACTS :The matter is called for hearing today dated 1.1.2010. The parties have not appeared before the Commission. Hence, it has been decided to dispose of the matter on the basis of material on record. By his letter of 29.10.2008, the appellant had requested for information about the action taken on the tax evasion complaint filed by him.
2. The CPIO had refused to disclose information on the ground that DGIT (Inv) is an exempted organisation u/s 24 of the RTI Act. It is, however, noticed that the CPIO had not given the name and designation of the first Appellate Authority before whom the first appeal could be filed. Nor had he mentioned the time frame within which the first appeal could be filed. Thus, it appears that CPIO did not discharge his mandate under sub section (8) of section 7 of the RTI Act.
3. Besides, it is also to be noted that blank ban on disclosure of information regarding the action taken on tax evasion complaints may not always be in the best interest of the state revenues. In fact, it may dis-enthuse the information givers as information givers are generally keen to know whether the information provided by them has been of some value to the authorities or not. Feed back in this regard would motivate the information givers to provide further informations to the authorities and thereby enable them to curb tax evasion and enhance the state revenues. Viewed thus, despite the office of DGIT (Inv) being an exempted organisation, it may not always be the best policy to deny some kind of feed back to the information givers.
DECISION
4. In view of the above, the matter is remanded to ITO (Inv) (HQ) (CPIO), O/o Director General of Income Tax (Inv), Lucknow, with the direction to provide particulars of the First Appellate Authority to the appellant. On receipt of this information or otherwise, the appellant may file first appeal before FAA who will decide the appeal in the light of foregoing observations of the Commission.
5. The order of the Commission may be complied with in 04 weeks time.
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.
(D.C. Singh)
Under Secretary & Dy. Registrar
Address of parties :-
1. ITO (Inv) (HQ) (CPIO),
O/o Director General of Income Tax (Inv),
Aaykar Bhawan, 5, Ashok Marg,
Lucknow-226001
2. Shri Brij Ballabh Singh
Rajputana Uttar Tola,
Maunath Bhanjan, Mau-275101
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2009/01014
Appellant: Shri Brij Ballabh Singh
Public Authority: DGIT (Inv), Lucknow
Date of Hearing: 1.1.2010
Date of Decision: 1.1.2010
FACTS :The matter is called for hearing today dated 1.1.2010. The parties have not appeared before the Commission. Hence, it has been decided to dispose of the matter on the basis of material on record. By his letter of 29.10.2008, the appellant had requested for information about the action taken on the tax evasion complaint filed by him.
2. The CPIO had refused to disclose information on the ground that DGIT (Inv) is an exempted organisation u/s 24 of the RTI Act. It is, however, noticed that the CPIO had not given the name and designation of the first Appellate Authority before whom the first appeal could be filed. Nor had he mentioned the time frame within which the first appeal could be filed. Thus, it appears that CPIO did not discharge his mandate under sub section (8) of section 7 of the RTI Act.
3. Besides, it is also to be noted that blank ban on disclosure of information regarding the action taken on tax evasion complaints may not always be in the best interest of the state revenues. In fact, it may dis-enthuse the information givers as information givers are generally keen to know whether the information provided by them has been of some value to the authorities or not. Feed back in this regard would motivate the information givers to provide further informations to the authorities and thereby enable them to curb tax evasion and enhance the state revenues. Viewed thus, despite the office of DGIT (Inv) being an exempted organisation, it may not always be the best policy to deny some kind of feed back to the information givers.
DECISION
4. In view of the above, the matter is remanded to ITO (Inv) (HQ) (CPIO), O/o Director General of Income Tax (Inv), Lucknow, with the direction to provide particulars of the First Appellate Authority to the appellant. On receipt of this information or otherwise, the appellant may file first appeal before FAA who will decide the appeal in the light of foregoing observations of the Commission.
5. The order of the Commission may be complied with in 04 weeks time.
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.
(D.C. Singh)
Under Secretary & Dy. Registrar
Address of parties :-
1. ITO (Inv) (HQ) (CPIO),
O/o Director General of Income Tax (Inv),
Aaykar Bhawan, 5, Ashok Marg,
Lucknow-226001
2. Shri Brij Ballabh Singh
Rajputana Uttar Tola,
Maunath Bhanjan, Mau-275101
No comments:
Post a Comment