CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2009/000802
Appellant: Shri M.P. Padmanabhan
Public Authority: Income Tax Department, Kannur
Date of Hearing : 3.6.2010
Date of Decision : 3.6.2010
FACTS :
The matter is called for hearing today dated 3.6.2010. 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.
2. It is noticed that vide RTI application dated 2.11.2007, the appellant had requested for the following information :-
“1. Whether investigation was conducted in the matter and if so the name and designation of the official who conducted the investigation.
2. Findings of the investigation duly furnishing the following information :-
(a) Whether Shri P Rajivan has a PAN number;
(b) Whether Shri Rajivan has been filing Income Tax returns regularly;
(c) If so income declared for the last three years.”
3. This was responded by the CPIO vide letter dated 26.11.2007 stating that he had started the investigation in the matter and the outcome of the inquiry will be intimated to the appellant in due course. By subsequent letter dated 6.12.2007, the CPIO had informed the appellant that information
requested for by him could not be disclosed in terms of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
4. The AA had decided the matter vide order dated 18.3.2009 wherein he had observed as follows :-
“However, concerned assessing officer ITO Ward 1(1), Kannur has already intimated to said
petitioner vide letter dated 26.11.07 that information provided by petitioner is in nature of tax evasion petition & concerned Assessing officer has started investigation in case of 3rd party.
Since it is a matter of tax evasion; the same has to be proceeded with as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, the petitioner is intimated accordingly.”
5. It, however, appears to the Commission that the outcome of investigation into the TEP has not been indicated to the appellant. It is to be noted that in File No CIC/LS/A/2009/01014 (B.B. Singh Vs DGIT (Inv), Lucknow) decided on 1.1.2010, the Commission had observed as follows :-
“3. Besides, it is also to be noted that blank ban on disclosure of information regarding action taken on tax evasion complaints may not always be in best interest of state revenues. In fact, it may dis-enthuse information givers as information givers are generally keen to know whether information provided by them has been of some value to authorities or not. Feed back in this regard would motivate information givers to provide further informations to authorities and thereby enable them to curb tax evasion and enhance state revenues. Viewed thus, despite 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
6. Applying the ratio of the above decision to the present case, we direct the CPIO to intimate the broad outcome of investigation into the TEP to the appellant in 06 weeks time.
7. The matter is decided accordingly.
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 & Deputy Registrar
Address of parties :-
1. The Income Tax Officer
Ward (1) & CPIO,
Range-1, Kannothumchal,
Kannur-670006
2. Shri M P Padmanabhan
Old No 29, New No 22,
Ramasami Garden Street,
Royapettah, Chennai-600014
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2009/000802
Appellant: Shri M.P. Padmanabhan
Public Authority: Income Tax Department, Kannur
Date of Hearing : 3.6.2010
Date of Decision : 3.6.2010
FACTS :
The matter is called for hearing today dated 3.6.2010. 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.
2. It is noticed that vide RTI application dated 2.11.2007, the appellant had requested for the following information :-
“1. Whether investigation was conducted in the matter and if so the name and designation of the official who conducted the investigation.
2. Findings of the investigation duly furnishing the following information :-
(a) Whether Shri P Rajivan has a PAN number;
(b) Whether Shri Rajivan has been filing Income Tax returns regularly;
(c) If so income declared for the last three years.”
3. This was responded by the CPIO vide letter dated 26.11.2007 stating that he had started the investigation in the matter and the outcome of the inquiry will be intimated to the appellant in due course. By subsequent letter dated 6.12.2007, the CPIO had informed the appellant that information
requested for by him could not be disclosed in terms of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
4. The AA had decided the matter vide order dated 18.3.2009 wherein he had observed as follows :-
“However, concerned assessing officer ITO Ward 1(1), Kannur has already intimated to said
petitioner vide letter dated 26.11.07 that information provided by petitioner is in nature of tax evasion petition & concerned Assessing officer has started investigation in case of 3rd party.
Since it is a matter of tax evasion; the same has to be proceeded with as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, the petitioner is intimated accordingly.”
5. It, however, appears to the Commission that the outcome of investigation into the TEP has not been indicated to the appellant. It is to be noted that in File No CIC/LS/A/2009/01014 (B.B. Singh Vs DGIT (Inv), Lucknow) decided on 1.1.2010, the Commission had observed as follows :-
“3. Besides, it is also to be noted that blank ban on disclosure of information regarding action taken on tax evasion complaints may not always be in best interest of state revenues. In fact, it may dis-enthuse information givers as information givers are generally keen to know whether information provided by them has been of some value to authorities or not. Feed back in this regard would motivate information givers to provide further informations to authorities and thereby enable them to curb tax evasion and enhance state revenues. Viewed thus, despite 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
6. Applying the ratio of the above decision to the present case, we direct the CPIO to intimate the broad outcome of investigation into the TEP to the appellant in 06 weeks time.
7. The matter is decided accordingly.
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 & Deputy Registrar
Address of parties :-
1. The Income Tax Officer
Ward (1) & CPIO,
Range-1, Kannothumchal,
Kannur-670006
2. Shri M P Padmanabhan
Old No 29, New No 22,
Ramasami Garden Street,
Royapettah, Chennai-600014
No comments:
Post a Comment