CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2010/000090
Appellant: Shri Dori Lal
Public Authority: Income Tax Department
Date of Hearing: 20.4.2010
Date of Decision: 20.4.2010
FACTS :The matter is called for hearing today dated 20.4.2010. The parties have not appeared before the Commission. Hence, it has been decided to dispose of this matter on the basis of material on record.
2. It is noticed that the appellant appears to have filed a TEP against Shri Kuljeet Singh, Shri Gurjeet Singh and Shri Sukhdev Singh etc regarding construction of a palacial house by spending black money of about Rs 1.00 Crore and had sought information about the action taken by the Income Tax Deptt: in this regard.
3. ITO, Ward 1 (3), Dehradun, vide order dated 23.9.2009 had informed the appellant that the matter in hand did not fall in his jurisdiction. On appeal, the AA vide order dated 28.8.2009 had refused to disclose any information in terms of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
4. A similar matter had come up before this Commission in File No CIC/LS/A/2009/01014 (Brij Ballabh Singh VS DGIT (Inv), Lucknow) wherein the Commission had observed that it would be a good idea to give feed back to the appellant regarding the TEP filed by them. The operative of the order is extracted below :-
“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 information 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.”
5. The ratio of the above decision squarely applies in this case. The TEP may be true or false but he appellant is entitled to know the borad outcome thereof. The full details of investigation, however, need not be disclosed as it may impede the process of investigation.
6. In view of the above, the order of AA is set aside and he is hereby directed to disclose the broad outcome of the TEP to the appellant in 04 months time. The details of investigation are not required to be disclosed.
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. Dass)
Assistant Registrar
Address of parties :-
1. The Addl Commissioner of Income Tax
Range-1 & AA,
Income Tax Department, Dehradun,
Uttrakhand.
2. Shri Dori Lal
Panditwadi, Near Prem Nagar Police Station,
Dehradun, Uttrakhand.
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2010/000090
Appellant: Shri Dori Lal
Public Authority: Income Tax Department
Date of Hearing: 20.4.2010
Date of Decision: 20.4.2010
FACTS :The matter is called for hearing today dated 20.4.2010. The parties have not appeared before the Commission. Hence, it has been decided to dispose of this matter on the basis of material on record.
2. It is noticed that the appellant appears to have filed a TEP against Shri Kuljeet Singh, Shri Gurjeet Singh and Shri Sukhdev Singh etc regarding construction of a palacial house by spending black money of about Rs 1.00 Crore and had sought information about the action taken by the Income Tax Deptt: in this regard.
3. ITO, Ward 1 (3), Dehradun, vide order dated 23.9.2009 had informed the appellant that the matter in hand did not fall in his jurisdiction. On appeal, the AA vide order dated 28.8.2009 had refused to disclose any information in terms of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
4. A similar matter had come up before this Commission in File No CIC/LS/A/2009/01014 (Brij Ballabh Singh VS DGIT (Inv), Lucknow) wherein the Commission had observed that it would be a good idea to give feed back to the appellant regarding the TEP filed by them. The operative of the order is extracted below :-
“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 information 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.”
5. The ratio of the above decision squarely applies in this case. The TEP may be true or false but he appellant is entitled to know the borad outcome thereof. The full details of investigation, however, need not be disclosed as it may impede the process of investigation.
6. In view of the above, the order of AA is set aside and he is hereby directed to disclose the broad outcome of the TEP to the appellant in 04 months time. The details of investigation are not required to be disclosed.
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. Dass)
Assistant Registrar
Address of parties :-
1. The Addl Commissioner of Income Tax
Range-1 & AA,
Income Tax Department, Dehradun,
Uttrakhand.
2. Shri Dori Lal
Panditwadi, Near Prem Nagar Police Station,
Dehradun, Uttrakhand.
No comments:
Post a Comment