CIC/LS/A/2009/000802 - Shri M.P. Padmanabhan Vs Income Tax Department: Information on Tax Evasion Petition can not be denied

                                 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

CIC/LS/A/2009/001179 - Shri Virag R. Dhulia Vs Income Tax Department: Information into a TEP investigation needs to be communicated to the appellant and that it should be concluded in a reasonable time frame

                                 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                                   Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
                                      Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066

                                            File No. CIC/LS/A/2009/001179


Appellant:            Shri Virag R. Dhulia
Public Authority:  Income Tax Deptt; Kolkata
                           (through : Sh. D.K. Kedia, ITO, Ward 34(3), Kolkata).

Date of hearing -   18.02.2010
Date of decision -  18.02.2010

Facts :- It appears that the appellant had filed a TEP against Shri Harish Goda. In this connection, he had sought information on the following 04 paras vide RTI application dated 6.6.2009 :-
“(i) Under which section was the notice issued to Mr. Harish Goda?
(ii) Please provide a copy of the notice issued to Mr. harish Goda for the said TEP?
(iii) Please provide a copy of acknowledgment of Mr. harish goda having received the notice.
(iv) Please provide the details about the current status of the inquiry.”

2. The CPIO had informed him vide letter dated 31.7.2009 that the investigation into the matter was continuing.

3. Aggrieved with this, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

4. Heard on 18.02.2010. Appellant not present. The Public Authority is represented by the officer named above. It is his say that the investigation in the TEP is still continuing and further action is to be taken by ITO, Ward 31(3), Kolkata.

5. It is to be noted that investigation into a TEP cannot be allowed to go on ad-infinitum and that it should be concluded in a reasonable time frame whereafter the broad outcome thereof needs to be communicated to the appellant i.e. whether the allegations made in the TEP are fully true, partially true or untrue. No further information needs to be disclosed at this stage.

DECISION

6. In view of the above, Income Tax Officer, Ward 31(3), 10 – B.C., Middleton Row, Kolkata-700017, is hereby directed to complete the investigation in next three months time and intimate the broad outcome thereof, as indicated herein above, to the appellant in three months time.

7. The appeal is disposed of subject to the above directions.

(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 :
1. The ITO Ward 34(3) & CPIO,
10-B.C., Middleton Row,
Kolkata-700017.
2. Shri Virag R. Dhulia,
203 KK towers, 6th Cross,
Balaji Layout Kaggadaspura,
CV Raman Nagar,
Bangalore-560093.

CIC/AT/A/2007/00009 - Shri Yamaji Sakharam Rathod Vs Income Tax Department: Information on Tax Evasion Petition is directed to disclose. As such, there is hardly an information which does not have some “personal” focus

                                     CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION                                                                              …..
                                                                                  F.No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00009
                                                                                  Dated, the 2nd March, 2007.

Appellant:       Shri Yamaji Sakharam Rathod, Gram Sakha President, Hira Nagar,
                      Bhrashtachar Virodhi Jan Andolan, Hira Nagar, Post Hatral, Tal. Mukhed,
                      District Nanded, Pincode-431 715.

Respondents:  Shri Dalbir Singh, Commissioner of Income Tax & CPIO,
                      Office of Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad, Aayakar Bhawan,
                      Opp. Holy Cross English School, Aurangabad

                      Shri P.J. Thomas Kutty, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & AA,
                      Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhawan,
                      Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, Nashik-422 002, Maharashtra.

This second appeal is by Shri Yamaji Sakharam Rathod is against the order dated 1.8.2006 of the Appellate Authority (AA), Shri P.J. Thomas Kutty, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik. The appellant’s RTI-request to the CPIO was dated 18.5.2006 and the reply of the CPIO was on 12.6.2006.

2. The appellant had asked for information regarding a certain complaint he had filed with the Income Tax Department about alleged tax evasion by a third party, Shri Venkat Roopsingh Rathod, resident of Hiranagar (Tanda). The position of the CPIO as well as the Appellate Authority was that this matter was personal to a third party and was barred from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

3. There is no doubt that AA has come to a reasoned conclusion that, given the nature and type of information, requested by appellant, there is ground to believe that what was being sought was only the personal information about a 3rd party, which was barred u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, fact which AA seemed not to have duly focused on is that the complaint made by the appellant to the Income Tax authorities was about a matter of alleged tax evasion. Such a matter cannot be said to be a personal matter of the alleged tax evader. These evasions involved public money and, therefore, were related to a public activity and have had a public purpose. I am, therefore, of the view that the appellant is entitled to a response from the public authority about the status of action, if any, on the petition he had submitted to them on 18.5.2006. Larger public interest justifies disclosure of this information.

4. In consideration of the matter and after hearing the parties, I am of the view that the CPIO should make a proper response to the appellant about the status of the action taken by the public authority on the appellant’s petition dated 18.5.2006.

5. It is useful to mention here that in evaluating any information in terms of Section 8(1) (j) utmost care needs to be exercised. There is hardly an information which does not have some “personal” focus. To bar their disclosure only for that reason will exclude vast swathe of information from the ambit of RTI Act. Therefore, each information should be closely scrutinized to determine whether it need be barred from disclosure, if at all. No rule of the thumb can be applied. Each case should be treated as unique.

6. The CPIO, Shri Dalbir Singh, Commissioner of Income Tax is directed to disclose, within two weeks from date of receipt of this order, the response of public authority to the aforesaid petition of appellant.

7. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.

       Sd/-
(A.N. TIWARI)
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Authenticated by –
     
      Sd/-
( NISHA SINGH )
Joint Secretary & Additional Registrar

Address of parties:
1. Shri Yamaji Sakharam Rathod, Gram Sakha President, Hira Nagar, Bhrashtachar Virodhi Jan Andolan, Hira Nagar, Post Hatral, Tal. Mukhed, District Nanded, Pincode-431 715.
2.Shri Dalbir Singh, Commissioner of Income Tax & CPIO, Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad, Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Holy Cross English School, Aurangabad.
3.Shri P.J. Thomas Kutty, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Appellate Authority, Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhawan, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, Nashik-422 002, Maharashtra.

CIC/AT/A/2008/01389 - Shri Sanjay Bhardwaj Vs Income Tax Department

                              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

CIC/LS/A/2009/01014 - Shri Brij Ballabh Singh Vs Income Tax Department: blank ban on disclosure of information regarding the action taken on tax evasion complaints may not always be correct

                                   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

CIC/LS/A/2010/000090 - Shri Dori Lal Vs Income Tax Department: Disclose the broad outcome of the Tax Evasion Petition(TEP) to the appellant

                                  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.

CIC/LS/A/2009/001113 - Shri Chetan Anand Parashar Vs Income Tax Department

                                   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

CIC/AT/A/2008/00268 - Shri Badri Verma Vs Income Tax Department

                                          CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                                                                         …..
                                        
                                                                                  F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00268
                                                                                  Dated, the 16th July, 2008.

Appellant:           Shri Badri Verma
Respondents:      Income Tax Department

This matter came up for hearing on 10.07.2008 pursuant to Commission’s hearing notice dated 12.05.2008. Appellant was present through his representative, Shri Bhagat Singh Chouhan, while the respondents were represented by Ms.Pomela B. Prasad.

2. Through his RTI-application dated 19.07.2007, appellant had asked for three items of information, two of which related to disclosure of a third-party’s Income Tax Returns and the volume of taxes paid by the third-party between the years 2004 and 2007. But the first part of the query was about the status of the tax-evasion petition filed by the appellant in respect of that third-party which has been named here as Mr.Sandip Chopra and his firms.

3. Although it has been the decision of the Commission that income tax-related details of assessees should not be disclosed through RTI-proceedings, the matters related to tax-evasion petitions can, in certain circumstances, be considered for disclosure. In the Commission’s view in a majority of cases of the tax-evasion petitions, the petitioner is entitled to receive the status at any given time about the processing of that tax-evasion petition. The present appellant seems to be a tax-evasion petitioner vis-à-vis the Income Tax Department.

4. Commission would expect that the department closely analyses as to whether the requested information about the status of tax-evasion petition ― apparently filed by the appellant ― be disclosed to him.

5. Appeal is accordingly remitted back to the Appellate Authority, Shri S.P.Singh, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore, with the direction that after giving a hearing to the appellant, he will decide whether the information requested regarding the tax-evasion petition be disclosed to the appellant including a determination about whether the petitioner qualifies to be a ‘tax-evasion petitioner’. The Appellate Authority may decide this matter within four weeks from the date of the receipt of this order.
6. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.

7. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.


           Sd/-
   (A.N. TIWARI)
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER


Authenticated by –
       Sd/-
      ( D.C. SINGH )
Under Secretary & Asst. Registrar

CIC/LS/A/2009/001067 - Shri Manish Kumar Vs Income Tax Department

                                  CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION                                    Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
                                       Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066

                                           File No. CIC/LS/A/2009/001067

Appellant:              Shri Manish Kumar
Public Authority:    Income Tax Department
                             (through:Shri Sukhbeer Chaudhary, Addl. CIT &
                             Shri Jagdish Chander Pulhari)

Date of hearing -   04.03.2010
Date of Decision - 04.03.2010

Facts :-
The matter is called for hearing today dated 04.03.2010. Appellant present. The Public Authority is represented by the officers named above. It is noticed that vide RTI application dated 12.5.2009, the appellant had sought information about the progress in the TEP filed by him against one Pawan Kumar. The CPIO had responded to it vide letter dated 11.6.2009. The first appeal was decided by the AA vide order dated 6.8.2009.

2. The present appeal is directed against the above orders.

3. During the hearing, the appellant would submit that he had filed TEP way back in April 2009 and despite lapse of about 10 months, no information about the progress made therein has been provided to him. On the other hand, Shri Sukhbeer Chaudhary would submit that the matter is under investigation and no progress therein can be intimated in terms of section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.

4. It is to be noted that a similar issue had come up before the Commission in File No. CIC/LS/A/2009/01014(Brij Ballab Singh –Vs- DG IT(Investigation), Lucknow) wherein the Commission had observed as follows :-
“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 organization, it may not always be the best policy to deny some kind of feed back to the information givers.”
The ratio of above decision aptly applies in this case. The TEP may be true or false. In any case, the appellant is entitled to know the outcome thereof. However, the full details of the investigation need not be disclosed as it would impede the process of investigation.

DECISION

5. In view of above discussion, CPIO is hereby directed to disclose the broad outcome of TEP to the appellant in 04 months time. It is, however, clarified that he need not disclose details of investigation.
       

                                                                                                             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. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle 47(1) & CPIO, Room No. 426,
Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Circus,
New Delhi-110001.
2. Shri Manish Kumar,
C-6/342, Badan Street, Nr. Gole Park,
Dhuri-148024, Pb.