Central Information Commission
M Suresh Kumar vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 11 November, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: Total 4 cases.
(1) CIC/CCIB1/A/2024/113456
(2) CIC/CCACH/A/2024/117575
(3) CIC/CCACH/A/2024/120707
(4) CIC/CCACH/A/2025/100448
M Suresh Kumar .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO,
O/o the Principal Commissioner
of Income Tax-1, 63, Race
Course Road, Coimbatore - 641018
2. CPIO,
Income Tax Officer, Non-Corp
Ward 4(4), 63, Race Course
Road, Coimbatore - 641018
3. CPIO,
Office of the Income Tax
Officer, TDS Ward 1,
Mayflower Midi City, Trichy
Road, Coimbatore - 641018 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 10.11.2025
Date of Decision : 11.11.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for disposal
through common order as these are based on identical issues raised by the
same Appellant against same Respondent Public Authority.
Page 1 of 71
(1) CIC/CCIB1/A/2024/113456
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28.11.2023
CPIO replied on : 07.12.2023
First appeal filed on : 20.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 18.01.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.04.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.11.2023 (offline) seeking
the following information:
"DETAILS SOUGHT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
a. DETAILS OF TAX ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE
FY 2006-07 (AY 2007-08) in respect of PAN NO. ***** 2715C
b. THE Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) followed by the Office of the
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Race Course Road, Coimbatore in
respect of Communications handed over in person / by Registered Post.
I The following were some of the aspects quoted by the IT Department in
respect of the Assessee ***** 2715C:
1. The assessee has filed his ROI for the A.Y. 2007-08 on 28.07.2008
declaring income as Rs. 1,80,540/-.
2. The Assessee had claimed an amount of Rs. 11,300/- as TDS deducted
by his employer.
3. The return was Processed on 10.03.2010 and since, there was no TDS
credit available, a demand of Rs. 17,170/- was raised.
4. This demand along with interest was adjusted by CPC with the refund
for the A.Y. 2020-21 and A.Y. 2021-22.
5. The proof of TDS Deduction and Remittance towards the IT payable by
the Assessee was informed by the IT Department that the same would be
available with Canara Bank only, who was the Employer of the assessee
for the F.Y. 2006-07 relevant to the A.Y. 2007-08.
6. The necessary details of such TDS deduction and remittance towards
the IT Payable by the Assessee was, directed by the IT Department, to be
sought by the Assessee under PAN ACAPS2715C from the Employer.
The advice was followed by the Assessee under PAN ***** 2715C and
the details were sought from the Employer, but nothing materialized.
Page 2 of 71
In view of the above, the Assessee under PAN ***** 2715C is left with no
other option rather than taking up the matter with the IT Department
again.
Kindly provide the following information which is sought under the Right
to Information Act:
a. The date of filing of the Return of Income for the AY 2007-08 by the
Assessee under PAN Number ***** 2715C
b. The Date of Processing of the RETURN OF INCOME for the AY 2007-08
for the Assessee under PAN ***** 2715C
c. The reason for such delayed Assessment of IT in respect of the said
Assessee under PAN ***** 2715C for the FY 2006-07 (AY 2007-08)
d. The amount claimed as TDS, if any, by the Assessee under PAN *****
2715C for the AY 2007-08
e. The basis upon which the TDS of Rs.11300/- was said to have been
claimed by the Assessee, as per IT DEPARTMENT version under PAN
***** 2715C for the AY 2007-08
f. The amount of demand raised by the Income Tax Department as TAX
DUES on the Assessee ***** 2715C based on the Return of Income filed
by the Assessee ***** 2715C for the AY 2007-08 for PAN ***** 2715C
g. The details of the break up of the amount so demanded as raised as
TAX Dues by the Income Tax Department from the Assessee ***** 2715C
based on the Records and Return of Income Filed by the Assessee for the
AY 2007-08 for PAN ***** 2715C with detailed list of the break up of the
amounts so demanded as INCOME TAX for the said period of AY 2007-08,
based on TOTAL INCOME of the Assessee for the FY 2006-07 (AY 2007-
08)
h. The details of the break up of the amount so adjusted from the
amount due to the Assessee as refund for the AY 2020-21 due to the
amount raised as TAX Dues by the Income Tax Department from the
Assessee ***** 2715C based on the Records and Return of Income Filed
by the Assessee for the AY 2007-08 for PAN ***** 2715C with detailed
list of the break up of the amounts so demanded as INCOME TAX for the
said period of AY 2007-08, based on TOTAL INCOME of the Assessee for
the FY 2006-07 (AY 2007-08)
i. The details of the break up of the amount so adjusted from the amount
due to the Assessee as refund for the AY 2021-22 due to the amount
raised as TAX Dues by the Income Tax Department from the Assessee
ACAPS2715C based on the Records and Return of Income Filed by the
Assessee for the AY 2007-08 for PAN ***** 2715C with detailed list of
Page 3 of 71
the break up of the amounts so demanded as INCOME TAX for the said
period of AY 2007-08, based on TOTAL INCOME of the Assessee for the FY
2006-07 (AY 2007-08)
j. The date of demand of the above INCOME TAX for the said period of AY
2007-08 on the Assessee ***** 2715C, as documented by the INCOME
TAX DEPARTMENT, along with the copy of the demand so made on the
Assessee
k. The mode of raising the demand of the above INCOME TAX as due for
the said period of AY 2007-08 on the Assessee ***** 2715C, vide proof of
such mode of communication dispatched to the Assessee ***** 2715C,
l. The Normal Period of collection of the said demand of the above
INCOME TAX as was due for the said period of AY 2007-08 in all other
cases as compared to that which was done for the Assessee ***** 2715C
during the relevant period
m. The specific reason as to why the INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT had
recovered the INCOME TAX so payable and demanded along with
interest (as was adjusted by CPC with the refund for the A.Y. 2020-21 and
A.Y. 2021-22); instead of earlier recovery may be informed with specific
reference to the Assessee ***** 2715C.
n. This delayed collection for the Assessee ***** 2715C for the AY 2007-
08 being collected along with interest by adjustment with the refund for
the A.Y. 2020-21 and A.Y. 2021-22 being carried out with inordinate
delay, depriving the Assessee ***** 2715C for the said period of taking
up any remedial measure due to the long pendency of the matter, may
be listed.
o. Interest on demand as per | Clause 3 and 4 as above was at what rate
of interest and for what period?
p. The period reckoned for recovery of interest was it on account of the
willful default on the part of the Assessee to pay the amount so
demanded on the Assessee under ***** 2715C?
q. If so, the date on which such demand of dues NOTICE, if was served
against acknowledgement, the same may be provided to the Assessee
under ***** 2715C
r. Whether the Assessee was eligible for other refunds under the
subsequent Returns filed by the Assessee under ACAPS 2715 C after
assessment of TAX for the FY 2006-07 (AY 2007-08) until AY 2020-21 &
AY 2021-22 depriving the Assessee to take up the matter with the IT
Department/Employer for necessary remedial action.
Page 4 of 71
s. If so why the dues under the IT assessed by the IT Department for the
FY 2006-07 was not appropriated until the Refund due to the Assessee
under AY 2020-21 and AY 2021-22 depriving the Assessee to take up the
matter with the IT Department/Employer for necessary remedial action.
II. Certain allegations were made on the ASSESSEE under ***** 2715C by
the IT Department relating to the non providing/furnishing of certain
documents which were informed in the letters addressed by the Income
Tax Department. Hence the following information is additionally sought
for under Right to Information Act, which may also kindly be furnished:
a. The SOP for receipt of letters which are delivered in person to the ITO,
NCW (IV) at the Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Race
Course Road, Coimbatore with specific reference to the matters of
Grievance in connection with the IT Matters of the Assessee under *****
2715C may be outlined..
b. The SOP for receipt of letters which were delivered in person to the
ITO, NCW (IV) at the Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Race Course Road, Coimbatore with specific reference to the following
letters:
A. Letter dated 03/03/23 (two letters sent by Registered Post &
addressed to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1)
B. Letter dated 06/07/2022
C. Letter dated 13/08/2016
c... The SOP for receipt of Registered letters addressed to the Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax at the Office of the Principal Commissioner
of Income Tax, Race Course Road, Coimbatore.
d. The SOP for receipt of letters which were addressed to the Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax at the Office of the Principal Commissioner
of Income Tax, Race Course Road with specific reference to the following
letter:
e. The SOP for replies which are due to such Registered Letter addressed
to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax at the Office of the Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax, Race Course Road, Coimbatore.
f. Whether the IT Department had sought for reply vide ONLINE SERVICE
OF ORDERS from Canara Bank, BUNGALOWPUDUR Branch, which the IT
Department based upon the Assessee's (***** 2715C), reply
letter/response to office letter dated 24.05.2023, wherein he had
submitted a letter dated 05.08.2022 which was addressed to THE
GENERAL MANAGER CANARA BANK, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI, which
Page 5 of 71
described of his Tax Deduction at Source at Bungalowpudur Branch was
specifically made, taken cognizance of responded by the Departemnt?
g. Whether the IT Department who had been given a reply by the
assessee, in response to the office letter ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-
24/1053135865(1) dated 24.05.2023, wherein he had submitted a letter
dated 05.08.2022 which was addressed to THE GENERAL MANAGER,
CANARA BANK, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI established therein that the
Jurisdiction Office was Chennai Office, taken cognizance of and escalated
the matter with the concerned Office seeking for details about the Tax
Deduction at Source?
h. Whether the IT Department, which had informed vide letter *****
2715C/NCW-4 (4)/CBE/CPGRAMS DATED 19/07/23 that the matter was
taken up with CANARA BANK, RS PURAM, Coimbatore vide
communication/Online service of Orders - Letter addressed by IT
Department vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1053136616(1) dated 24th
May 2023 to the erstwhile Circle Office, Coimbatore (TAN CMBC 03033C)
In respect of the matter of Tax Deduction at Source in respect of the
***** 2715C, upon non receipt of reply, taken up the matter with the
Bank by means of any reminder?
i. Whether the IT Department, which had not received any reply in such
matters from the Bank, BASED ON THE ONLINE SERVICE OF ORDERS,
when such orders are served on Assessees allow such matters to rest,
without following up until the matter is replied or complied with by the
Assessees or such other Office?
j. What are the ruling guidelines of the Income Tax Department on
matters which are taken up with the Assessees or such other Offices
when the replies are not received for such online service of orders, may
kindly be shared along with the reply communication
k. The Provision of accepting of Stamped Indemnity on Rs.20 Stamp
paper representing the Indemnity Document to make good the loss to
the IT Department in case the claim by the Assessee of the TDS was
found to be false at a later date whether is in existence in the Income Tax
Department for providing relief to Assessees of any kind.
l. Whether such process of accepting Stamped Indemnity on Rs.20 Stamp
paper was never accepted for any such cases of grievance in the past by
the IT Department ?
m. The system of the Department which is evolved to redress the
grievance of the Assessees who are especially SENIOR CITIZENS, with
regard to such matters which have serious implications on their health
like Blood Pressure, Diabetes, Stress, Agony, distress etc may kindly be
Page 6 of 71
outlined with special reference to the following: 1. Letters accepted but
not acknowledged on such grievance matters when provided by
ASSESSEES with lot of confidence/trust/belief on the HONOURABLE
INCOME TAX OFFICERS of the Department of INCOME TAX at the Office
of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Race Course Road,
Coimbatore 2. Letters addressed as Registered POST as advised by the PA
to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - without giving an
opportunity to the Aggrieved Senior Citizen Assessee to meet the TOP
MOST OFFICIAL Of the jurisdictional Office on such Assessment matters -
not replied 3. Matters referred to the Department of Income Tax by the
Aggrieved Senior Citizen Assessee on such matters, through CPGRAMS
replied without care and concern in that the matter was not handied in
full but partially in that the matter was not taken up with another Branch
Office where the Assessee had worked and was a part of the IT
DEDUCTION/PAYMENT Process @ Bungalowpudur which was in the
knowledge of the JURISDICTIONAL OFFICE 4. The representations in
CPGRAMS continuously rejected by the Department without taking the
matter seriously saying that the TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE as claimed
in the Return of Income filed by the Assessee for the AY 2007-08 was not
acceptable 5. Senior Citizen Assessee who is aggrieved was not provided
an opportunity to meet the Principal Commissionaer of Income Tax
inspite of multiple visits and the issue was never given a solution.
n. The reply by the ITO, Salary Circle at Coimbatore in respect of the fate
of the Deduction of Tax at source for the subject Assessee ***** 2715C
for the FY 2006-07 (AY 2007-08) may kindly be shared along with this
reply.
o. The status of the Grievance under 4342176 dated 17 Feb 2022 as
shared to the IT. Assessee ***** 2715C may be furnished."
2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 07.12.2023
stating as under:
"The applicant vide above mentioned RTI Application has sought for
information as requested in Sl. Nos. 1 (a) to 1(s) & Sl. Nos. 2(a) to 2(o) of
the RTI application, under the Right To Information Act, 2005.
Vide letter cited under reference 2, the RTI application has been
transferred u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the Jurisdictional Assessing
Officer (viz) ITO, Non-Corporate Ward 4(4), Coimbatore as the
information sought for under Sl. Nos. 1(a) to 1(s) and Sl. Nos. 2(f), 2(g),
2(h), 2(1), 2(k), 2(1), 2(n) & 2(o) pertains to the Jurisdictional Assessing
Officer.
Page 7 of 71
The reply of the CPIO with respect to the information sought vide Sl. Nos.
2(a) to 2(e), 2(j) & 2(m) in the above mentioned RTI petition as below:
2 (a) to (d) There is no SOP for receipt of Tapals in Office of the PCIT-1,
Coimbatore. However, the practice that is continued at present is Tapals
are received in ASK (Ayakar Seva Kendra) where necessary number and
seals are placed and they are delivered in the office of the PCIT-1,
Coimbatore either in the evening of the day or in the morning of the next
day in which tapals are received.
Such tapals are entered in the system maintained in the office of the
PCIT-1. Coimbatore in excel sheet and they are serially numbered and
sealed mentioning the date of receipt. Thereafter, the tapals are put up
to the PCIT who makes initials in the seals as mark of having seen the
tapal and through the ITO(HQ), the tapals are marked to the respective
personnel dealing with the appropriate subject. Actions are then taken
on these tapals and forwarded either to the Jurisdictional Assessing
Officers or to the Range Heads or to the Assessces depending upon the
nature of tapals.
Your letter dated 03.03.2023 addressed to the PCIT-1, Coimbatore was
forwarded to the JAO (viz) ITO, Non-Corp. Ward 4(4), Coimbatore vide
this office letter in C.No.Refund/PCIT/CBE/2022-23 dated 10.03.2023 for
redressal of your grievance, since the details were available only with the
Jurisdictional Assessing Officer concerned and not with the office of PCIT-
1, Coimbatore.
2(e) There is no prescribed SOP for replying to the Assessee. Any query
raised by the Assessee are replied appropriately as per the contents of
the letter.
2(j) The query raised is general in nature. As far as the Income Tax
Department is concerned, when a query is raised to the assessee and
reply is not received, the action will be taken by the officer issuing such
letters as deemed fit in accordance with law.
2(m) Income Tax Department is committed to redressing the grievances
not only to the senior citizens but to every tax payer.
Different mechanisms of grievance redressal are available with the
Income Tax Department and they are expeditiously done in a time bound
manner.
For meeting the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Coimbatore a
prior appointment needs to be made with the Personal Secretary of the
PCIT and appointments are given. The query raised vide this Sl.No.
Page 8 of 71
cannot be replied as there is no such request made by the applicant to
meet the PCIT-1, Coimbatore."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.12.2023.
The FAA vide its order dated 18.01.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
(2) CIC/CCACH/A/2024/117575
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28.11.2023
CPIO replied on : 05.01.2024
First appeal filed on : 29.01.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 04.03.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24.05.2024
Information sought:
4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.11.2023 (offline) seeking
the following information:
"DETAILS SOUGHT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
a. DETAILS OF TAX ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE
FY 2006-07 (AY 2007-08)
in respect of PAN NO. ***** 27150
b. THE Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) followed by the Office of the
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Race Course Road, Coimbatore in
respect of Communications handed over in person/by Registered Post
This has reference to the above.
I The following were some of the aspects quoted by the IT Department in
respect of the Assessee *****S2715C:
1. The assessee has filed his ROI for the A.Y. 2007-08 on 28.07.2008
declaring income as Rs. 1,80,540/-.
2. The Assessee had claimed an amount of Rs. 11,300/- as TDS deducted
by his employer.
3. The return was Processed on 10.03.2010 and since, there was no TDS
credit available, a demand of Rs. 17,170/- was raised.
Page 9 of 71
4. This demand along with interest was adjusted by CPC with the refund
for the A.Y. 2020-21 and A.Y. 2021-22.
5. The proof of TDS Deduction and Remittance towards the IT payable by
the Assessee was informed by the IT Department that the same would be
available with Canara Bank only, who was the Employer of the assessee
for the F.Y. 2006-07 relevant to the A.Y. 2007-08.
6. The necessary details of such TDS deduction and remittance towards
the IT Payable by the Assessee was, directed by the IT Department, to be
sought by the Assessee under PAN *****2715C from the Employer.
The advice was followed by the Assessee under PAN *****2715C and the
details were sought from the Employer, but nothing materialized.
In view of the above, the Assessee under PAN *****2715C is left with no
other option rather than taking up the matter with the IT Department
again.
Kindly provide the following information which is sought under the Right
to Information Act:
a. The date of filing of the Return of Income for the AY 2007-08 by the
Assessee under PAN Number *****2715C
b. The Date of Processing of the RETURN OF INCOME for the AY 2007-08
for the Assessee under PAN *****2715C
c. The reason for such delayed Assessment of IT in respect of the said
Assessee under PAN *****2715C for the FY 2006-07 (AY 2007-08)
d. The amount claimed as TDS, if any, by the Assessee under PAN
*****2715C for the AY 2007-08
e. The basis upon which the TDS of Rs.11300/- was said to have been
claimed by the Assessee, as per IT DEPARTMENT version under PAN
*****2715C for the AY 2007-08
f. The amount of demand raised by the Income Tax Department as TAX
DUES on the Assessee *****2715C based on the Return of Income filed
by the Assessee *****2715C for the AY 2007-08 for PAN *****2715C
Page 10 of 71
B. The details of the break up of the amount so demanded as raised as
TAX Dues by the Income Tax Department from the Assessee *****2715C
based on the Records and Return of Income Filed by the Assessee for the
AY 2007-08 for PAN *****2715C with detailed list of the break up of the
amounts so demanded as INCOME TAX for the said period of AY 2007-08,
based on TOTAL INCOME of the Assessee for the FY 2006-07 (AY 2007-
08)
h. The date of demand of the above INCOME TAX for the said period of
AY 2007-08 on the Assessee *****2715C, as documented by the INCOME
TAX DEPARTMENT, along with the copy of the demand so made on the
Assessee
i. The mode of raising the demand of the above INCOME TAX as due for
the said period of AY 2007-08 on the Assessee *****2715C, vide proof of
such mode of communication dispatched to the Assessee ACAPS2715C.
j. The Normal Period of collection of the said demand of the above
INCOME TAX as was due for the said period of AY 2007-08 in all other
cases as compared to that which was done for the Assessee *****2715C
during the relevant period
k. The specific reason as to why the INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT had
recovered the INCOME TAX so payable and demanded along with
interest (as was adjusted by CPC with the refund for the A.Y. 2020-21 and
A.Y. 2021-22); instead of earlier recovery may be informed with specific
reference to the Assessee *****2715C.
l. This delayed collection for the Assessee *****2715C for the AY 2007-
08 being collected along with interest by adjustment with the refund for
the A.Y. 2020-21 and A.Y. 2021-22 being carried out with inordinate
delay, depriving the Assessee *****2715C for the said perind of taking
up any remedial measure due to the long pendency of the matter, may
be listed.
m. Interest on demand as per I Clause 3 and 4 as above was at what rate
of interest and for what period?
n. The period reckoned for recovery of interest was it on account of the
willful default on the part of the Assessee to pay the amount so
demanded on the Assessee under *****2715C?
Page 11 of 71
o. If so, the date on which such demand of dues NOTICE, if was served
against acknowledgement, the same may be provided to the Assessee
under ACAPS2715C
p. Whether the Assessee was eligible for other refunds under the
subsequent Returns filed by the Assessee under ACAPS 2715 C after
assessment of TAX for the FY 2006-07 (AY 2007-08) until AY 2020-21 &
AY 2021-22 depriving the Assessee to take up the matter with the IT
Department/Employer for necessary remedial action.
q. If so why the dues under the IT assessed by the IT Department for the
FY 2006-07 was not appropriated until the Refund due to the Assessee
under AY 2020-21 and AY 2021-22 depriving the Assessee to take up the
matter with the IT Department/Employer for necessary remedial action.
II. Certain allegations were made on the ASSESSEE under *****2715C by
the IT Department relating to the non providing/furnishing of certain
documents which were informed in the letters addressed by the Income
Tax Department. Hence the following information is additionally sought
for under Right to Information Act, which may also kindly be furnished:
a. The SOP for receipt of letters which are delivered in person to the ITO,
NCW (IV) at the Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Race
Course Road, Coimbatore with specific reference to the matters of
Grievance in connection with the IT Matters of the Assessee under
ACAPS2715C may be outlined.
b. The SOP for receipt of letters which were delivered in person to the
ITO, NCW (IV) at the Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Race Course Road, Coimbatore with specific reference to the following
letters:
A
B
C
c.. The SOP for receipt of Registered letters addressed to the Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax at the Office of the Principal Commissioner
of Income Tax, Race Course Road, Coimbatore.
d. The SOP for receipt of letters which were addressed to the Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax at the Office of the Principal Commissioner
Page 12 of 71
of Income Tax, Race Course Road with specific reference to the following
letter:
e. The SOP for replies which are due to such Registered Letter addressed
to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax at the Office of the Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax, Race Course Road, Coimbatore.
f. Whether the IT Department had sought for reply from Canara Bank,
BUNGALOWPUDUR Branch, which the IT Department-based upon the
Assessee's (*****2715C), reply letter /response to office letter dated
24.05.2023 wherein he had submitted a letter dated 05.08.2022 which
was addressed to THE GENERAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK, TEYNAMPET,
CHENNAI, which described of his Tax Deduction at Source at
Bungalowpudur Branch was specifically made, taken cognizance of
responded by the Departemnt?
g. Whether the IT Department who had been given a reply by the
assessee, in response to the office letter dated 24.05.2023, wherein he
had submitted a letter dated 05.08.2022 which was addressed to THE
GENERAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI established
therein that the Jurisdiction Office was Chennai Office, taken cognizance
of and escalated the matter with the concerned Office seeking for details
about the Tax Deduction at Source?
h. Whether the IT Department, which had informed vide letter dated
24th May 2023 that the matter was taken up with CANARA BANK, RS
PURAM, Coimbatore vide communication/Online service of Orders -
Letter- addressed by IT Department vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-
24/1053136616(1) dated 24th May 2023 to the erstwhile Circle Office,
Coimbatore (TAN CMBC 03033C) in respect of the matter of Tax
Deduction at Source in respect of the *****2715C, upon non receipt of
reply, taken up the matter with the Bank by means of any reminder?
i. Whether the IT Department, which had not received any reply in such
matters from the Bank, when such orders are served on Assessees allow
such matters to rest, without following up until the matter is replied or
complied with by the Assessees or such other Office ?
j. What are the ruling guidelines of the Income Tax Department on
matters which are taken up with the Assessees or such other Offices
when the replies are not received, may kindly be shared along with the
reply communication
Page 13 of 71
k. The Provision of accepting of Stamped Indemnity on Rs.20 Stamp
paper representing the Indemnity Document to make good the loss to
the IT Department in case the claim by the Assessee of the TDS was
found to be false at a later date-whether is in existence in the Income Tax
Department for providing relief to Assessees of any kind.
l. Whether such process of accepting Stamped Indemnity on Rs.20 Stamp
paper was never accepted for any such cases of grievance in the past by
the IT Department ?
m. The system of the Department which is evolved to redress the
grievance of the Assessees who are especially SENIOR CITIZENS, with
regard to such matters which have serious implications on their health
like Blood Pressure, Diabetes, Stress, Agony, distress etc may kindly be
outlined with special reference to the following: 1. Letters accepted but
not acknowledged on such grievance matters when provided by
ASSESSEES with lot of confidence /trust / belief on the HONOURABLE
INCOME TAX OFFICERS of the Department of INCOME TAX at the Office
of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Race Course Road,
Coimbatore 2. Letters addressed as Registered POST as advised by the PA
to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - without giving an
opportunity to the Aggrieved Senior Citizen Assessee to meet the TOP
MOST OFFICIAL OF the jurisdictional Office on such Assessment matters
not replied 3. Matters referred to the Department of Income Tax by the
Aggrieved Senior Citizen Assessee on such matters, through CPGRAMS
replied without care and concern in that the matter was not handled in
full but partially in that the matter was not taken up with another Branch
Office where the Assessee had worked and was a part of the IT
DEDUCTION/PAYMENT Process @ Bungalowpudur which was in the
knowledge of the JURISDICTIONAL OFFICE 4. The representations in
CPGRAMS, continuously rejected by the Department without taking the
matter seriously saying that the TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE as claimed
in the Return of Income filed by the Assessee for the AY 2007-08 was not
acceptable 5. Senior Citizen Assessee who is aggrieved was not provided
an opportunity to meet the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax inspite
of multiple visits and the issue was never given a solution.
n. The reply by the ITO, Salary Circle at Coimbatore stating that the
Deduction of Tax for the subject Assessee *****2715C C needs to be
reconfirmed under this reply which needs to be taken on record."
Page 14 of 71
5. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 05.01.2024
stating as under:
"Your application has been forwarded to this office to provide the
information sought by you in SI no. 1(a) to 1(s) and 2(1), 2(g), 2(h), 2(i),
2(k), 2(1), 2(n) and 2(0) of your application under the RTI Act. The same
are furnished as under:-
1.
a. Date of filing of manual return of Income for A.Y. 2007-08-28.07.2008.
b. Date of processing of ROI for the AY 2007-08-10.03.2010.
c. The reason of such delayed assessment - There is no delay. The
processing was completed within the due date specified u/s- 143(1).
d. The amount claimed as TDS by the assessee for AY 2007-08-Rs.
11,300/-
e. The basis upon which TDS of Rs. 11,300/- was said to have been
claimed - As seen from the ITD portal that a TDS of Rs. 11,300/- has been
claimed.
f. The amount of demand raised for AY 2007-08-Rs. 17,170/-
g. Details of break up of the demand -
Tax Rs. 11,108/-, Cess-Rs. 222/-
Interest u/s- 234A, B, C-Rs. 5,843/-. Total Rs. 17,173/- R/O Rs. 17,170/-
h. The details of breakup of amount adjusted from refund of AY 2020-21
with AY 2007-08 demand The CPC has adjusted the Demand of
Rs.17,170/- and Interest (Partly) of Rs. 7,570/- (Total refund adjusted -
Rs. 24,690/-)
i. The details of breakup of amount adjusted from refund of AY 2021-22
with AY 2007-08 demand The CPC has adjusted Rs. 7,136/- towards the
Interest (Partly) on the demand pertaining to the A.Y. 2007-08.
Further, the CPC has adjusted the demand of AY 2020-21-Rs. 27,898/-
(Rs.24,690/-+ Rs. 3,198/- +Rs. 10/-)
(Note: The assessee has revised his return for the A.Y. 2020-21 with no
refund due. So, this refund issued by way of demand adjustment of Rs.
Page 15 of 71
24,690/- has become demand at the time of processing of revised return.
The same was adjusted with the refund of the A.Y. 2021-22).
j. The date of demand - As per ITD portal, 143(1) order date is
10.03.2010.
k. The mode of raising the demand-Vide Intimation u/s-143(1) in the
departmental portal. The Intimation orders were sent by the then
assessing officer through Speed Post. The assessee is already in
possession of the Intimation u/s - 143(1).
l. Normal period of collection of said demand-The demand becomes
due/collectible after 30 days from the service of order. There is no
specific period of collection of demand raised.
m. The demand was reflecting in system as payable by you and the same
was adjusted with the refund for the Subsequent years (By CPC-ITR).
Further, the CPC-ITR has already issued intimation to you for the
proposed adjustment of refund vide communication dated 04.12.2020
and 12.05.2022 for the A.Y. 2020-21 and 2021-22 respectively.
n. There is no delay in collection of Demand raised.
o. Rate of interest u/s-220-
1% per month or part of a month for the period from the day it becomes
due to the day it is paid.
p. & q. The assessee is already in possession of the Intimation u/s-143(1).
r. &s. Where ever, the refund is due, the CPC-ITR will keep the refund on
hold and issues intimation to the assessee for the proposed adjustment
of refund requesting to respond within a specific time period mentioned
in that intimation.
On the basis of the response/non response, the CPC-ITR
issues/adjusts/partly adjusts the refund.
2.f. & g. No. Since, the assessee has claimed in his ROI that a TDS of Rs.
11,330/-has been deducted from TAN-CMBC03033C. The Holder of The
TAN is CANERA Bank, 166, TV Swamy Road, R.S. Puram Coimbatore-
641002.
Page 16 of 71
Hence, a letter was sent to the Canara bank to furnish the proof for TDS
deducted.
h & i. No. This office letter dated 24.05.2023 was served on the Canara
Bank by speed post. But, no reply has been received till date.
Further. As per the CBDT Circular No. 8/2015 dated 14.05.2015, when
there is mismatch in TDS, the AO can pass order u/s-154 after obtaining
the TDS Certificate from the assessee on the basis of which claim has
been made.
k. No.
l. No.
n. There is no reply submitted by the Salary Circle, Coimbatore.
o. There is no grievance under 4342176 found in the record of this office.
There were 2 grievance filed by you under E-Nivaran ID
202311100455998 and 202311100455978 and both were already
disposed on 02.03.2023.
Accordingly, your RTI application is disposed in this office.
Appeal, if any, is to be filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of this
order."
6. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.01.2024.
The FAA vide its order dated 04.03.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
(3) CIC/CCACH/A/2024/120707
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 31.12.2023
CPIO replied on : 17.02.2024
First appeal filed on : 18.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 19.03.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.06.2024
Information sought:
7. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.12.2023 (offline) seeking
the following information:
"DETAILS SOUGHT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
Page 17 of 71
1.PMOPG E 2023 0230987 CLOSED BY THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT-TPS II ON
01/11/2023- DISPOSED ON THE BASIS OF INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION
PROVIDED BY ITO AT NCW 4(4)
2. DELAY IN PROCESSING OF ROI FILED ON TIME/RECOVERY ON
ACCOUNT OF TDS NOT ACCOUNTED BY EMPLOYER/SOP ON
OPERATIONAL MATTERS
3. COMPUTERISATION OF INCOME TAX DATA AT TDS WARD (1) & NCW
4(4) WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE TDS DEDUCTED IN RESPECT OF
CANARA BANK @ BUNGALOWPUDUR & ERSTWHILE CIRCLE OFFICE,
COIMBATORE ACAPS 2715C-ROI FILED FOR AY 2007-08
This has reference to the above.
The following information may kindly be provided to the Applicant who
has sought the information under the Right to Information Act, atter his
various attempts to seek grievance redressal under various platforms
including the CPGRAMS/PMO GRIEVANCE Site etc not having yielded
results:
1. PMOPG E 2023 0230987 CLOSED BY THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT-TPS II ON
01/11/2023-DISPOSED OFF ON THE BASIS OF INSUFFICIENT
INFORMATION PROVIDED BY ITO NCW 4(4)
TDS DEDUCTED AT BUNGALOWPUDUR BRANCH (DP 1659) & ERSTWHILE
CIRCLE OFFICE OF CANARA BANK COIMBATORE WHICH IS NOW MERGED
WITH CANARA BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, CHENΝΑΙ :
A. The Applicant reproduces herebelow the details of the TDS deductions
which were mentioned in the letter addressed to the PCIT-1 on 03 March
2023 in page 02:
"I was working for Canara Bank and during the Financial Year 2006-07 I
was at a branch at Bungalowpudur (Erode District) where the TDS from
Salary was deducted from the Salary payable for every month beginning
from the First month of the Financial Year (as strictly enforced by the
Bank) and duly remitted to SBI, Gobichettipalayam. Subsequently, during
the same FY. I was transferred to Coimbatore Circle Office where again
the TDS was continued to be enforced and the same so deducted from
my Salary was remitted to SBI Coimbatore".
B. But the Assessee is shocked to note that the PCIT1 Office or the ITO at
NCW 4(4) had not taken cognizance of the fact of the TDS which was
made out of the salary paid to the Assessee / Applicant / Employee by
Page 18 of 71
the Employer (CANARA BANK) at Bungalowpudur and have not
addressed any letters / on line service of orders on Bungalowpudur
branch on account of which the issue is not clarified and the matter of
the TAX PAYER /Assessee / Applicant under the RTI Act remains. The
reply to the matter is sought for by the Applicant under the RTI Act, as to
the specific reason as to why the Office of ITO NCW 4(4) has resorted to
partial obtention of information from only CANARA BANK, COIMBATORE
(which was also not the appropriate office to address the matter raised
in the subject, as the Office to which the letter was addressed by the
NCW 4(4) has no jurisdiction in the subject matter as it was only a carved
out Office due to the Reorganisation of the BANK which resulted in the
Erstwhile Circle Office, Coimbatore merging with Circle Office, Chennai
and hence making the CIRCLE OFFICE, CHENNAI responsible to the
matter, which fact was clearly written on a white piece of one sided
paper provided by the NCW4 (4) Office where all the email Ids of the
offices involved /addresses involved and Sections involved branch name
of Bungalowpudur were clearly written and handed over to the ITO of
NCW4 (4)). This fact of the TDS effected at both the Offices where the
Assessee had worked during the FY 2006-07 was clearly informed to the
ITO NCW 4(4) and was also made available to the PCIT 1 vide the Letter
addressed to the PCIT-1 dated 03/03/2023 by the Assessee / Applicant.
C. Reference is drawn to the following communication and its various
annexures under ACAPS2715C/NCW-4(4/CBE/cpgrams dated
19/07/2023- which stands as proof in the subject matter that the TDS
effected and the Form 16 provided by the branch office at
Bungalowpudur has been completely disregarded while handling the
matter of the Assessee / Applicant under the RTI Act. Also, no such
"online service of orders" has been served on the respective TDS Ward
seeking for proof of the TDS so deducted by the Branch of the Bank,
during the service period of the Assessee at Bungalowpudur in the FY
2006/07, which is expected to be paid into the Government Account/SBI
at Gobichettipalayam. Reply is sought for under the RTI Act as to the
action taken in respect of this by the IT Department to seek for details
from the Bank of the said TDS which was effected by the Bank at the
Branch during the tenure of service of the said Assessee at the Office of
BUNGALOWPUDUR branch which forms part of the SUBJECT MATTER
which was REPRESENTED to the IT Department, on account of which the
Department had made out the reply dated 19th July 2023 to the Assessee
for the issue raised under CPGRAMS.
Page 19 of 71
D. It would not be out of place to mention that the fact of the TDS in the
subject Assessee's ROI which carries both the TDS quantums of
deductions effected from the Salary of the subject Assessee paid at the
branch of Bungalowpudur and Erstwhile Circle Office Coimbatore of
Canara Bank have been omitted to be reconciled and it would have been
any normal AO/ processing authority's examination/quizzing power to
have a deep look into the matter as to how could TDS quantums
EFFECTED BY BOTH THE BRANCH/OFFICE OF CANARA BANK would be
omitted to be accounted for in the Books of Accounts at both ends at the
IT Department VIZ., NCW 4(4) and the IT Department's TDS Ward which
would have given the clue that the entire TAX RECORDS/TDS DETAILS of
ACAPS2715C were not available in the system at the respective
Departments, due to Computerisation and the ITO at NCW 4(4) was
providing a Screen shot of the Computer to the Assessee which did not
carry any TDS data as the period of Computerisation of records at the
Office / IT Department was that of FY 2007-08 and the TDS records relate
to the period of FY 2006-07, which on repeated representations by the
Assessee / Applicant under the RTI Act were pointed out to the concerned
Officer, which was not taken seriously. Hence the matter sought for
under the RTI Act by the Applicant as to what is the factual situation in
the matter of the Exact date of Computerisation at the IT Offices
concerned ( VIZ., ITO NCW 4(4) and IT TDS WARD (I)) which alone can
bring justice to the grievance raised by the regular TAX PAYER/Applicant
under the RTI Act. Documentary Proof of the subject matter needs to be
provided under the IT Act to establish the reply in the matter under the
RTI Act of the Exact Date of Computerisation at both the above offices.
E. The CBDT Circulars/relevant guidelines in relation to the matters
handled by the AO, on the specific aspect of mismatch of TDS observed in
respect of the ROI filed by the Assessee and the TDS details available at
the ITO Office with regard to the PAN ACAPS2715 C for the FY 2006-07, in
specific relation to the guidelines prevalent for the service of Orders on
the Employer /Employee when such observations are seen in relation to
what has been pointed out by the NCW 4(4) Office in the letter dated
19th July 2023 needs to be outlined under RTI Act with the penal
guidelines for Non Remittance of such TDS so deducted and not remitted
by the Bank/Employer and the authority on whom the compliance vests,
if such a situation arises during the Assessment of the Tax Liability of the
Assessee.
F. The basis upon which the Matter of correspondence / service of orders
in respect of non availability of TDS of the Assessee at the IT Office was
Page 20 of 71
made out to a non existent Office ( CANARA BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE,
COIMBATORETAN CMBC03033C) which was made by the NCW 4(4) in
2023 when the Office was, on Reorganisation, merged with Circle Office,
Chennai prior to the year 2020 itself, and no communication / on line
service of Orders was made on the right jurisdictional office Circle Office
of Canara Bank situated at Teynampet Chennai, which deprived justice to
the Aggrieved Assessee / Appicant under the RTI Act and resulted in false
submissions by NCW 4(4) to the Representations made out to the
Department under CPGRAMS /PMO Office, needs to be outlined in the
matter. Hence, Kindly provide the information sought for under the RTI
Act.
2. DELAY IN PROCESSING OF ROI FILED ON TIME / RECOVERY ON
ACCOUNT OF TDS NOT ACCOUNTED BY EMPLOYER/SOP ON
OPERATIONAL MATTERS
1. What is the general period of assessment of the Tax liability of the
Assessee / employee who is under TDS deduction by the Employer (being
a Nationalised Bank) if his returns were filed promptly for the AY 2007-
08?
2. Is there any time limit within which the ROI filed by the Assessee /
employee who is under TDS deduction by the Employer (being a
Nationalised Bank), when his returns were filed promptly for the AY
2007-08 should be reviewed / assessed by the IT Department ?
3. Is there any time limit within which the ROI filed by the Assessee /
employee who is under TDS deduction by the Employer (being a
Nationalised Bank), when his returns were filed promptly for the AY
2007-08 should be reviewed / assessed by the IT Department and the
liability / refund informed to the Employee / Assessee by the IT
Department ?
4. Is there any time limit within which the ROI filed by the Assessee /
employee who is under TDS deduction by the Employer (being a
Nationalised Bank), when his returns were filed promptly for the AY
2007-08, LIABILITY (short IT Paid) so reviewed / assessed by the IT
Department- be communicated by any specific laid out guidelines by any
SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) in practice / in force? Details may
kindly be informed to the Applicant under the Application made under
RTI Act?
Page 21 of 71
5. The Specific guidelines in the above matter of making the Assessee
know of the liability (IT Short Paid or Not Paid by the Assessee as per the
IT Act) as per the Information sought for by the Applicant to be informed
under the RTI ACT to the Assessee / Applicant.
6. Is there any time limit within which the ROI so filed by the Assessee /
employee, who is under TDS deduction by the Employer (being a
Nationalised Bank), when his returns were filed promptly for the AY
2007-08, his liability be deducted or recovered from the Assessee
/Employee concerned, by the IT Department ?
7. Is there any time limit within which the ROI filed by the Assessee /
employee who is under TDS deduction by the Employer (being a
Nationalised Bank), when his returns were filed promptly for the AY
2007-08, when his liability is made known to the Assessee / Employee
within which the action, if any, is initiated by the IT Department in such
cases & the time period by which the action needs to be done / complied
with by the IT Department ?
8. In case there is no such SOP in force, Is there any time limit within
which the Assessee /Employee can, in the case of such a ROI so filed by
the Assessee / employee who is under TDS deduction by the Employer
(being a Nationalised Bank), when his returns were filed promptly for the
AY 2007-08, but was intimated of the Liability after two years; as the
Assessee had submitted a ROI with claim of TDS, within the time norms
promptly, would he not represent the matter to the IT Department for
reviewing the matter so earlier reviewed / assessed by the IT
Department?
9. Is there any time limit within which such a matter represented by the
Assessee / Employee who had the ROI for the AY 2007-08, filed by the
Assessee / employee who is under TDS deduction by the Employer (being
a Nationalised Bank), when there was no reply to his request in 2010 of
such a review / or there was neither any action by the IT Department for
his request for such a review nor there was any recovery of the liability
when his Returns (ROI) were filed promptly for the AY 2007-08 in July
2008 which was reviewed / assessed by the IT Department in 2010 and
the protracted delay therein would it not be construed by the Applicant
as the IT Department having had taken up with the Employer or with the
Assessee / Employee subsequently for recovery of the Liability or would
the action of such a recovery of liability be suspended indefinitely ?
Page 22 of 71
10. Is there any time limit within which the liability which has arisen on
account of a ROI filed by the employee who is under TDS deduction by
the Employer (being a Nationalised Bank), when his returns were filed
promptly in July 2008 for the AY 2007-08, be continued without any time
schedule and such a liability outstanding, still the Assesee receiving the
refunds from the Department which gives the feeling of confidence to the
Assessee that the matter of the TDS issue was resolved by the
Department and having allowed the matter to rest; but the IT
Department having continued the liability in the books of the IT
Department in cold storage, without claiming for the liability, at the
same time releasing the refunds should it not be reviewed/assessed by
the IT Department as a lapse on the part of the concerned staff working
at the IT Department instead of penalizing the Assessee / Employee who
was subjected to TDS at the hands of the Bank and still being called as a
DEFAULTER to the IT Department?
11. Under such circumstances, would it not be considered to be a default
on the part of the IT Department which has slept over its dues and as a
Banker who is not permitted to sleep over his dues with the LAW OF
LIMITATION in force, would it not be equally applicable to the IT
department which has slept over its dues from 2010 onwards which has
been adjusted from the refunds due to the Assessee in 2020-21, after a
period of 13 years?
12. Does the Law / IT Act permit such a long waiting period for the
Department to adjust its dues from the future Refunds due to the
Department and are the staff of the Department not accountable for
such lapses of unduly delayed recovery initiated from the Refunds due to
the Assessee who had promptly filed the ROI for the Financial year 2006-
07 (AY 2007-08) for which the Assessment was made by the IT
department in 2010 and the claims for the liability, which the
department clearly states that there were no (such) representations
made by the ASSESSEE (which itself is disputed by the Applicant under
the RTI ACT) which goes to establish that there has been unduly a very
long period for which the liability was not adjusted in respect of the
Assessee for the AY 2007-08 wherein the Bank (Employer had effected
the TDS and the same was remitted to the Treasury / IT designated Bank)
which data they are unable to produce due to the unduly long passage of
time, when records are not available at the Branch / Merged Office of
the Bank/Employer of the Assessee.
Page 23 of 71
13. Is there any time limit within which the liability which has arisen on
account of a ROI filed by the employee who is under TDS deduction by
the Employer (being a Nationalised Bank), when his returns were filed
promptly in July 2008 for the AY 2007-08, the Tax liability be continued
without any time schedule ? Such a liability outstanding having been
found in the books of the IT Department, which was noticed by the
Assessee again in 2016, making a representation for a second review in
the matter, stating about the TDS effected earlier by the Employer and
claimed as such, by the Employee / Assessee and requesting the IT
Department, to allow the matter to rest; but the IT Department
accepting such a request letter, still allowing the matter to be continued
without any action on the letter given by the Employee/ Applicant /
Assessee, continuing the liability without any reply to the letter or not
claiming the TAX DUES / LIABILITY; at the same time releasing the
refunds due to the Assessee for later Financial Years /ASSESSMENT
YEAR? Is there no such time limit and can the IT Department continue the
Tax liability and still continue to release the Refunds due to the Assessee
/ Applicant? Kindly state as to how should such a matter be reviewed /
looked into by the IT Department in the normal course?
14. Since 2016, the matter of the so arrived at TAX LIABILITY was allowed
to continue in the books of the IT Department and all normal refunds
which were due to the Assessee, were made available to the Assessee
and there has been no intimation in any of the communications/emails
which carried the information of the Refunds that such a liability is still
outstanding which is to be cleared by the Assessee. Is there any such SOP
in place to carry over or permit such matters of recovery for an unlimited
period of time? Also, there has been no intimation too to the Assessee of
such carry over of the TAX LIABILITY. Kindly inform the SOP in the matter
of such TAX liability so assessed by the IT Department.
15. Il such an SOP is not permitted/is not in force, kindly inform the
Applicant, as to how the liability was permitted to be continued in the
books of accounts of the IT Department in respect of a ROI filed by the
employee who is under TDS deduction by the Employer (being a
Nationalised Bank), when his returns were filed promptly in July 2008 for
the AY 2007-08, without any communication made out to the Assessee of
his dues to the IT Department.
16. If such an SOP is permitted/ is in force, where the LIABILITY could be
carried over from one year to another (without any restriction), Kindly
inform the Applicant under the RTI Act as to how the Department is
Page 24 of 71
justified in asking for proof of the following from the Assessee, in the
Year 2023 of documents pertaining to the year 2006-07 (AY 2007-08), as
sought by the IT Department, vide the communication DIN & Letter No
TBA/COM/FI17/2023-24/1 053136616(1) dated 24/05/2023-which is
reproduced herebelow:
a) Form-16 for the F.Y. 2006-07 relevant to the A.Y. 2007-08 issued by
the employer.
b) TDS Certificate for the F.Y. 2006-07 relevant to the A.Y. 2007-08.
c) Any other evidence showing that the TDS claimed by him for the A.Y.
2007-08 is deducted and remitted to the Govt. of India account by his
employer.
17. In response, to the above, the Applicant under the RTI Act, being the
assessee had filed his reply on 24.05.2023 stating that the Applicant was
having no records to provide. The Applicant had further mentioned that
the documents sought by the department, where the copies were held
with the Applicant were parted with the previous incumbents in 2010
and 2016. The Deparment SOP when such documents were taken from
the Assessee by the previous incumbents, may kindly be informed under
the RTI Act, as they were the only document copies which were available
with the Assessee / Applicant, which was taken by the Previous
Incumbent (in 2016) with the assurance that the matter would be
resolved once and for all. With the hope that the matter would be
resolved the documents were parted with by the Applicant/Assessee with
trust and confidence, which was paramount when Assessees deal with
such highly placed Officers. Also, the Assessee was in need of a favour in
the matter from the incumbent and hence without antogonising the said
Officers, the documents were parted with, with ofcourse with lot of
hesitation, but with trust and confidence on the officers/incumbents who
occupied the positions in the years 2010 and 2016 at the PCIT-1/IT Office
situated at Race Course Road, Coimbatore.
18. Since 2016, the Applicant was in receipt of the Refunds due to the
Assessee / Applicant and hence the Assessee / Applicant was lead to
believe that the matter under representation (now), stood completely
cleared / closed. Unfortunately, during the AY 2020-21, the recovery of
the dues / liability along with interest was adjusted from out of the
refund due to the Assessee /Applicant when no liability existed and the
entire liability under IT for the AY 2007-08 was covered by the TDS so
effected from the Salary paid to the Employee. Hence the application
made under the RTI Act to ascertain the SOP in the matter of handling
such matters in respect of the following:
Page 25 of 71
a. Processing time, as per the relevant Sections / Provisions of the IT Act
within which the ROI so filed by the Assessee / employee, who is under
TDS deduction by the Employer ( being a Nationalised Bank), when his
returns were filed promptly for the AY 2007-08 would be assessed /
processed by the IT Department under the various relevant Sections of
the IT Act, as applicable to Employees / Assessees whose TDS have been
promptly effected by the Bank and where such TDS has also been
declared by the Assessee under the RELEVANT ROI -as prevalent for the
AY 2007-08?
b. Claim Time for recovery of the Liability, as per the relevant sections of
the IT Act so arrived at by the IT Department, for dues assessed in respect
of the Assessee / Employee for the AY 2007-08
c. Extra ordinary circumstances, if any, in the matter of the delay in
Processing of ROI for AY 2007-08 where ROI so filed was in July 2008 by
the Assessee / Employee who has filed his ROI for the AY 2007-08 in July
2008 (well before he designated due date under the IT Provisions).
d. Extra ordinary circumstances, if any, in the matter of the delay in
Processing of ROI for AY 2007-08 where ROI so filed was in July 2008 by
the Assessee / Employee who has filed his ROI for the AY 2007-08 in July
2008 (well before he designated due date under the IT Provisions), where
recovery is assessed in respect of the ROI so filed by the Assessee
/Applicant.
e. The related attachment/ enclosures of ROI relied upon in the mater by
the IT Departmet when the ROI is processed by the AO to assess and
arrive at the TAX liability by the Assessee (as the submission of the ROI
was in Manual Environment in July 2008 and Assessment was completely
with Manual Records)
f. IT Department to provide the copies of such attachments relied upon
by the AO which is sought under the RTI Act as the entire matter of
Submission of the IT ROI and its attachments were under Manual
Environment and the AO would have also relied upon such
documents/attachments and the Manual ROI for the AY 2007-08.
g. Non effecting of TDS by the employer as was identified by the AO at
the time of processing the ROI of the subject assessee as has been
repeatedly alleged by NCW 4(4) whether it was viewed as an offerice
under the relevant provisions of the IT Act and whether the same was
taken up with the Employer citing the lapse on the part of the Employer
in not adhering to the guidelines of effecting of the TDS in the matter of
Salary Paid to Employees of the Bank ? The reply is sought under the RTI
Act as in case the same had been done, the Asseessee feels that the fact
of the TDS effected and all the related information would have been by
now received by the IT department and the necessary relief would have
Page 26 of 71
been given to the Applicant under the RTI Act. Hence the reply to the
matter is of high relevance.
h. If the Role of the Bank in respect of the negligence in the matter of
deduction of TDS from Salary paid to the Employees was not explored by
the IT Department, the reasons which could be attributed to the same
needs to be kindly pointed out under the IT Act.
19. The DEPARTMENT has further alleged the Applicant, that the
assessee/ Applicant had not submitted any evidences (such as
acknowledgement) for having filed the details for the
review/reassessment of IT Liability taking into account the TDS which
was called for by the IT Department either in 2010 or 2016. The applicant
would like to hence know the SOP followed by the IT Department when
such documents for review / reassessment of the IT Liability -taking into
account the TDS effected by the Employer which was earlier not
considered and hence such documents are tendered to the Officials of
the IT Department (which had happened in 2010 and 2016 of proof of
TDS effected / FORM 16 as issued by the Bank in the Financial year 2006-
07 as issued by Bungalowpudur Branch and Erstwhile Coimbatore Circle
Office as the Applicant had worked at both the Units at that Financial
Year 2006-07 and two sets of FORM 16 of both offices were produced to
the IT Department, along with the copy of the ROI Filed by the Applicant
for the said FY 2006-07.) The information is hence now sought for under
the Application made to the CPIO under the IT Act.
20. In the above case, in the Year 2010 and also in the Year 2016, kindly
state under the RTI Act as to why the silence by the IT Department should
not be construed as the request of the Applicant / Assessee for review of
the liability demanded, (a) to have been considered favourably by the IT
department duly taking into account the TDS so effected by the Banker
from the Salary payable to the Assessee (b) to have been settled taking
into account the status of the Assessee /Employee being a regular Tax
Payer under TDS Mode-effected by the Banker and accordingly the
benefit of doubt provided to the Assessee / Employee?
21. Also, as there were no reply communications or liability demanded
from the Assessee subsequently, kindly state under the RTI Act as to why
the silence thereafter should not be construed as the request of the
Applicant/Assessee for review of the liability demanded, to have been
closed by the IT Department, due to administrative reasons.
Page 27 of 71
22. Is the long silence from 2010 to 2020 (10 LONG YEARS) as maintained
by the IT Department in the instant case, is it not a sufficient long time
for the Assessee / Applicant under the RTI Act to presume that the
matter stood cleared, based on his representations made in 2010 and
2016 and the Issue was due to the long pendency, based on an
administrative decision, closed by the IT Department? Kindly do provide
the information under RTI Act as to the factual position under the IT Act.
23. The matter has been, upon the demand raised by the IT Department,
in the years 2020/2023, taken up with the Employer (Banker) of the
Assessee/Employee for the documents sought for by the IT Department
as pointed out under (16) for which the Employer/ Banker had asked for
the Copy of the ITAO (Copy of the communication under CPGRAMS is
enclosed / submitted). This was in turn sought for from the IT
department. The matter was not responded by the IT Department and
the reply that "the Issue is resolved" was the communication made by
the Income Tax Department. Kindly inform under the Reply to the RTI
Act, as to the reasons for denial of such a document and also provide
handholding to the Applicant/Assessee so that the copy of one or many
of the documents listed under (16) as sought by the Department could be
claimed from the Bank (Employer) of the Assessee / Applicant under the
RTI Act and produced to the IT DEPARTMENT, fulfilling the requirement
of the IT Department.
24. The issue faced by the Bank (Employer) in the matter is that the
Computerisation had happened in the year 2008 (FY 2006-07 documents
are hence not centralized and were at the Branch, which records could
not be traced by the Branch hearsay). A similar situation is found to be
informed by the IT DEPARTMENT too by the TDS ward Office of INCOME
TAX at Coimbatore. Hence the issue of the Applicant/Assessee is highly
complicated and the matter of TDS effected by the Employer could not be
traced at either the Bank or the IT Office. Kindly inform under RTI Act, as
to the resolution to the issue which is not in the hands of the Assessee
/Applicant and matters are blown out of proportion due to the unduly
long silence by the IT Department from the Year 2010 to 2020 in relation
to the tax liability assessed by the IT Department for the ROI filed by the
Assessee / Applicant for the FY 2006-07/AY 2007-08-which needs to be
appropriately explained and information made out to the Applicant
under the RTI Act.
25. When the IT Department itself informs that the IT RETURN (ROI) was
filed promptly for a particular financial year, by the said employee /
Page 28 of 71
Assessee with declaration of the details of the TDS, the claiming of the
TDS so shown in the ROI. As it was under Manual Environment, Does it
not go to establish the fact of TDS effected by the Bank and existence of
FORM 16 at the IT Office, based upon which such TDS was claimed by the
Assessee & Processed by the AO in the matter? Kindly inform the
following under the RTI Act, in the matter:
a. The probable basis upon which the IT Department would have made
this statement may kindly be informed, as submission of the ROI /
Attachments thereto was under Manual Environment
b. The figures of Income, the figures of TDS claimed are mentioned in the
statement made by the IT Department. As it was under Manual
Environment, the probable basis of which the statement is so made by
the Income Tax Department in the matter.
c. Whether the department which has received the ROI from the
Applicant/Assessee, which was under Manual Environment, would the
Department accept the ROI only under Manual Environment, and only
the ROI, merely based on filled up statements or whether proof of
documents (FORM 16/TDS Paid Details) would be demanded by the
Department or not at the time of accepting the ROI? Kindly inform in
relation to the FY 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, the
procedure followed by the IT Department in relation to ACAP52715C, so
as to make the information clear on the SOP followed by the IT
Department in the matter. The copy of the above necessary documents
may kindly be made available to the Applicant in respect of ROI of
ACAPS2715C, to help the Applicant proceed further in the matter.
d. When as under (16) if the IT department can request the Applicant /
Assessee for documents relating to the Financial year 2006-07 (AY 2007-
08), kindly find the request of the Assessee / Applicant under the RTI Act
AS UNDER 25(c) as a justified reasonable request and please make it
convenient to provide the ROI, the basis of calculation of the Assessment
made out in the matter and the copy of the demand notices served on
the Assessee / Applicant for the FYs as above and for the FY 2006-07/AY
2007-08 being documents as it was under Manual Environment then,
which are the strong basis of which the replies have been made out by
the IT department under Letter ACAPS2715C/NCW-4(4/CBE/cpgrams
dated 19" July 2023.
Page 29 of 71
e. The probable date by which the processing of the ROI as per the
relevant provisions of IT Act in force then, would have been completed in
the matter, if the Return of Income was made, for the A.Y. 2007-08,
which was filed on 28.07.2008, claiming TDS amount of X deducted by
the Bank (Employer) from the salary payable by the Bank to the Assessee
/Employer, may please be informed under RTI Act.
f. If it was so processed, if the TDS amount of X deducted by the Bank
(Employer) from the salary payable by the Bank to the Assessee /
Employer is claimed in the matter, kindly inform as to what proof would
have been sought for by the IT Department from the Assessee/Employee
to process the ROI for the said employee who works for a Nationalised
Bank, wherein the Bank promptly implements the TDS provisions and
where the Bank also deducts the same and where the Bank also remits
the amount so deducted into the designated Bank account (SBI) or
Treasury, as the case may be, may be informed to the Applicant under
the Application made out under the RTI Act.
g. If such a proof was asked by the IT Department, from the Assessee /
Employee, kindly inform the mode of communication of seeking such a
proof from the Assessee and by what date the communication would be
sent to the Assessee / TAX PAYER for taking on record the proof for such
TDS having been effected from the Salary payable to the
Applicant/Assessee showing proof in relation to the ROI filed for a
Financial Year / Assessment Year. Kindly make available the Information
under the RTI Act.
h. If no proof would be demanded, but the Department would proceed to
complete the processing of the ROI, kindly inform the details based upon
which it would do so and also the date by which the processing would be
completed in the above case pertaining to the FY 2006-07 (AY 2007-08)
by the IT Department, and the liability of the Employee, when it would be
Assessed/crystallized in the matter
i. If the matter was so processed and crystallized and information passed
on to the Assessee/Employee Concerned of the demand so made out in
respect of the Employee, the probable date by which the matter would
be intimated or would have been intimated/or would have made it
known to the Applicant/Assessee, in the said case where the Return of
Income was filed on 28th July 2008 (within the due date for the FY 2006-
07: AY 2007-08), may kindly be informed under the Application made to
CPIO under the RTI Act.
Page 30 of 71
j. If by the probable date which the subject Assessee / employee was
intimated of his liability, as per (h) above, kindly inform the steps that
would be initiated by the IT Department, as it is sought by the Applicant
under the APPLICATION made under RTI ACT, in the matter, for recovery
of the dues so intimated which is said to be due and payable by the
Assessee /employee / but which was not paid by the Assessee / employee
/ or having known, represented by the Assessee / employee, either in
person or through letters or through his authorized representative in the
matter.
k. If the recovery was not made by the Income Tax Department within
the date so mentioned by the IT Department under (i) above, the specific
reasons which withholds the department, from exercising its powers to
complete the deduction or providing time to the Assessee / Employee
may kindly be informed under the RTI Act as per the Application made
out for the said purpose.
l. If time was provided to the Assessee/ employee, for recovery of the
liability as per (i) above, as a reason of which the Department had
withheld the action of immediate recovery of the dues, kindly inform
under the RTI Act, whether the same is done
(a) by sending a communication to the Employee / Assessee if so kindly
provide copy of the same
(b) without providing or issuing a letter in writing by the Department for
recovery of the dues so identified in the ROI submitted by the Employee
on 28th July 2008.
m. Kindly inform as to what are the SOP available at the IT Department:
i. Proof of how the date of 28th July 2008 has been remarked by the IT
Department in respect of the ROI filed by the Assessee for the FY 2006-07
ii. Proof of the letter or representation given by the Assessee / Employee
to the IT Department which document was used to delay the recovery of
the dues so arrived at by the IT department,
iii. The copy of the document given by the department to the Assessee /
Employee considering time for recovery of the dues, if such action is
permissible in the department (along with the complete details of such
document)
Page 31 of 71
iv. The reasons for delay in the recovery of the dues from the subject
Assessee /employee in the years that followed which was for a period of
10 long years,
v. The reasons for recovering the amount due in the year 2020, which is
twelve years from the date of cause of action, which period is beyond
imagination for any Assessee / Employee or for the Employer to provide
any proof of TDS so effected /made from the Salary paid to the Assessee
/ employee / received by the Assessee /Employee.
n. The IT Department in the subject grievance, processed the ROI and
subsequently informs there was "no TDS Credit". Kindly inform as to how
this fact is generally arrived at, at the department, when the Department
is under the manual environment, as it was informed by TDS WARD(I) to
the Applicant on his visit to the said Office on 23/01/2023. Hence in FY
2007-08 the computerization of records was done at the IT Department
and that the Income of the Employee for which the ROI was filed was for
AY 2007-08 and hence the Salary received was for FY 2006-07 and TDS
effected in the year 2006-07 and hence the data sought for (TDS Details
OF THE ASSESSEE) was for a period at a time when Computerisation was
not implemented at the TDS Ward (1) of the IT Office and hence the data
was not available at their end. Hence kindly inform the Applicant under
the RTI Act as to how the fact of the TDS Credit as informed by the IT
Department under their various communications including the letter
quoted as above ACAPS2715C/NCW 4(4/CBE/cpgrams dated
19/07/2023- carried the figures, when the Department was under the
Manual Environment and as to how would this have been arrived at by
the Department in the subject matter, when computerized data was not
available at the IT Department/TDS Office Of the IT Department for the
FY 2006-07.
o. In case, the MATTER of "NO TDS CREDIT" was arrived at by the IT
Department based on the Computer Input, kindly inform whether the
process of Computerisation was done prior to 2007-08, along with
documentary proof, which results in the data of the FY 2006-07 which
should have been captured in the System. If so, kindly provide the
computer input captured data for the period when the data was
captured in respect of ACAPS2715C for the relevant period of FY 2006-07
& 2007-08 which could go to establish the fact that the input was correct
and that the TDS CREDIT was not available in the system, which is the
main allegation made by the IT Department against the Applicant who
has made the Application presently under the RTI Act.
Page 32 of 71
p. In case, the computerization was done only after 2007-08, but data of
FY 2006-07 was carried out in the system, with proof please, kindly
inform under RTI Act, as to whether the data of TDS Credit in respect of
ACAPS2715C could have, by accident missed out in the system by the
clerical mistake /data entry mistake or otherwise and hence the benefit
of doubt could be provided to the subject Assessee/ employee for whom
the prior period TDS and post period TDS data would be available at the
system which could be verified and benefit of doubt extended to the
Assessee/ employee who was ready to provide a Stamp Paper Indemnity
of Rs.20/-starmp value agreeing to indemnify the IT Department in case
the matter was found to be otherwise, at a later date. The SOP in the
matter of taking such an Indemnity and providing relief to the Assessee,
which was suggested by the Applicant's own Classmate who was an ITO
at an alternate Office, was totally declined by the IT department at
Coimbatore. The same may kindly be outlined under the RTI Act as the
Applicant has made out the Application under the ACT for the purpose of
finding out the factual position in the matter.
q. When the ROI was processed by the Department, as the process was in
manual environment, in the subject matter, it is informed that the ROI
was processed subsequently and as there was no TDS credit available, a
demand of Rs.17170 was made by the IT Department. If so, kindly inform
under the RTI Act the following;
i. How in respect of the ROI filed in 2008, the fact that there was "no TDS
Credit available" was decided by the IT Department, in 2010, in respect
of the above as the process was in Manual Environment?
ii. If no TDS Credit was available in such cases, the SOP in respect of
proceeding with such finding by the IT Department chronologically, may
kindly be informed to the Applicant under the RTI Act.
iii. Whether such Process of SOP was followed in respect of ACAPS2715C
for the AY 2007-08 when it was under manual environment?
iv. If so kindly provide the necessary proof of the same, as it was under
Manual Environment.
v. When was the liability amount of Rs.17170/- of the applicant, arrived
at by the Department?
Page 33 of 71
vi. If there is delay in the amount Assessed being arrived at as Rs.17170/-
by the Department, kindly inform the reasons for the delay.
vii. If not considered as under delay, how and under what relevant
provisions of the IT Act. Please state the relevant provisions in full rather
than quoting the Sections as it is an application made under RTI Act
where information has to be made in full and not partly, please.
viii. How the demand of Rs.17170/- was arrived at by the IT Department
in respect of the ROI Filed for the AY 2007-08 by the Employee /
Assessee.
ix. What was the basis of the IT Department arriving at the amount of
17170/-: kindly provide complete details / step by step calculations on
the Department arriving at the recovery/liability quantum of Rs.17170/.
x. The amount so arrived at by the IT Department; when was it made
available - the mode and the complete details of the same made as it
was under Manual Environment, in the public domain for the Assessee /
Employee to know of the same.
xi. The amount so arrived at by the IT Department, when was it actually
recovered by the IT Department from the Assessee. Whether Interest due
thereon was also recovered? If so, the amount of interest and the
methodology arrived at may be informed under the RTI ACT.
xii. If the amount so arrived by the IT Department as Rs.17170/-, if it was
recovered by the IT Department, with delay, kindly inform the reasons for
the delay, as it was under MANUAL ENVIRONMENT.
xiii. What are the ruling guidelines of the Income Tax Department on
matters of the sort where the deductions are on account of TDS which
are not found to be available in the Domain of the IT Department viz.,
System / Books of Accounts - especially with regard to TDS effected from
Salary by the Employer, as per the practice in vogue in the AY 2007-08.
xiv. If such TDS was actually made by the Bank, but the same could not
be proved, the status of the Assessee in such matters, under normal
circumstances and in the matter of Retired Senior Citizens and the Relief
that shall be available to the Assessees - both categories of Assessees,
under the IT Act may kindly be furnished under the RTI Act.
Page 34 of 71
xv. IF THE BANK which had completed the TDS, but not remitted the
same, the options which are available to the Employees who have been
subjected to such hardship by the Employers at the time of deduction,
but where the institutions do not respond to the request of the
employees to provide proof/details/relief, especially when the Assessees
are Senior Citizens/ Retired Bank Employees, may kindly be outlined
under the RTI Act.
xvi. The matters which are taken up with such other Offices, including the
TAX DEDUCTING OFFICES who enforce TDS, especially, when the replies
are not received for such matters / online service of orders, may kindly be
shared along with the reply communication
The next step in the Chronology may be informed under the RTI Act. xvii.
xviii. What are the grievance redressal mechanisms which are aimed at
providing quick redressal of complaints / grievances of Tax Payers,
especially on matters of TDS effected and in respect of Senior Citizens /
Retired Employees like that of the Applicant under the RTI Act.
xix. What are the guidelines of the INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT with
regard to the non remittance of TDS so effected by employers who have
not remitted the so deducted TDS Deductions which were effected from
employees under Salaries.
xx. What relief measures are in place where the Tax Payer informs of the
TDS deductions made from his Salary for which the Tax Payer has no
proof to produce as issues relate to the period beyond AY 2007-08, when
Computerisation was taken up at the IT department and Bank (Employer)
where Tax for the whole amount of income of the Employee / Assessee is
levied (disregarding the TDS so deducted of the Employee/ Assessee) and
Interest due thereon are recovered from the Assessees in the year 2020-
21?
xxi. In case due to the long passage of time, if the Tax Payer has no ways
of producing any documentary proof of the TDS effected from Salary
received by him and if the IT Department had also delayed the process of
assessment of the dues under the Income received by the subject
employee / Assessee for the year beyond AY 2007-08 and if the
EMPLOYEE has sufficient proof to establish that he has been subjected to
tax payment (a)for the year prior to year for which proof of TDS is said
not to have been produced by the employee / Assessee (b) for the year
subsequent to such a year in doubt, where the Employee / Assessee has
Page 35 of 71
been regularly subjected to TDS and such TDS has been taken into
account promptly by the Income Tax, what is the relief available to the
Employee / Assessee who has been a regular tax Payer to get the
amount collected by the IT Department denying the amount of TDS so
levied during the AY 2007-08, by the IT Department.
It is reliably learnt that the grievances not only of Senior Citizens but that
of every tax payer is redressed by the Department on a war footing. Also,
it is learnt that there were different mechanisms of grievance redressal
which were available with the INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT to ensure that
expeditiously the grievances are done in a time bound manner.
The CPIO may kindly provide information on the following:
A. Whether there are multiple mechanisms of grievance redressal
B. If so, what are the multiple mechanisms of grievance redressal
C. The very fundamental concept of Trust which is lost in the Department
functioning at COIMBATORE which has termed the Senior Citizen Tax
Payer as a defaulter in not having paid TAX for the FY 2006-07 (AY 2007-
08) in the year 2010 and dragging the matter beyond upto 2016 and
adjusting the dues from the Refund due in the year 2020 and further
adding salt to the wound as informed in the communication referred
under 25(d) as above: ACAPS2715C/NCW-4(4/CBE/cpgrams dated 19the
July 20231 (c) Page 02 that no Document was submitted by the Applicant
to the Department IS HIGHLY DISTURBING. The department has been, as
was the practice in 2023 too, when the Applicant had approached the
NCW 4 (4), the documents shared by the Applicant with the said ITO of
NCW 4(4), were not acknowledged by the subject Officer, as was the case
in 2010 and 2016 where the same was not acknowledged by the subject
Officers of the Department. Hence SOP sought for by the Applicant under
the Application made out under the RTI Act, in respect of the handling of
the letters submitted/sent by the Aggrieved Tax Payer/Applicant in the
matter to the said officer and their higher authorities.
D. Similarly the reply made by the Applicant to the Online Service of
Orders by the IT Department under ITBAICOM/FI17/2023-
24/1053135865(1) dated 24/05/2023 has also not been acknowledged
or inwarded with any reference number or date seal affixed or replied by
the Officer under NCW 4(4), until today were arrived at or reviewed /
processed by the IT Department; Under the circumstances, the Applicant
Page 36 of 71
does not deem it fit to level charges against the Department as
commented upon as per the letter dated 19th July 2023-1(c)-page 02. In
the normal course of representations to the said officer of the NCW 4(4),
the Applicant was lead to believe that the matter would be handled in its
right perspective by the Officers of the Department who were held in
high esteem by the Applicant and on whom entire trust and confidence
was exhibited by the Applicant. Also, never ever, the Applicant would
have had the doubt with regard to the Officers of such stature and
standing of the Office of the PCIT-1 to make such a statement as made
out in the letter dated 19th July 2023-1 (c)-page 02.
E. The Penalty for non remittance, by the BANK, of the TDS deducted by
the Bank from the Salary Payable to the Applicant by the INSTITUTION
(CANARA BANK) for the FY 2006-07 AY 2007-08, from both centres of
Bungalowpudur and Erstwhile Circle Office, Coimbatore, into the Income
Tax Department; whether DETAILS were demanded by the IT Department
with such Offices after the various representations were made out by the
Applicant in person and through representations made through
CPGRAMS/PMO Portal to the Department - may kindly be placed to the
Applicant, as sought for under Right to Information Act.
F. The matter as above, of TDS effected, as presented by the Applicant,
whether it is a fact or not and the genuineness of the claim by the
Applicant whether analysed/investigated by any of the Officers of the IT
Department and the assessment of their Role Play; whether done by The
IT department, needs to be brought out in the reply to the Application
made out by the Applicant under the RTI Act.
COMPUTERISATION OF INCOME TAX DATA AT TDS WARD (1) & NCW 4(4)
WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE TDS DEDUCTED IN RESPECT OF
CANARA BANK BUNGALOWPUDUR & ERSTWHILE CIRCLE OFFICE,
COIMBATORE
G. As it has been informed by the Jurisdictional officer (ITO under NCW
4(4)) during the said discussions in person that the Computerisation had
taken place in 2007-08 and hence data was not available in the system
so as to verify the Facts of TDS remittance of the Applicant ( which fact
was also informed to the Applicant during his visit to the Office of the
TDS Circle/TDS WARD 1, CBE (Coimbatore) (SUBRAMANIAM
JEGANNATHAN) that data was not available for the relevant period),
Page 37 of 71
(a) Kindly inform as to the date of computerization of TDS/Salary Records
at the Jurisdictional Officer viz., Income Tax TDS I IT OFFICE @ PCIT-1
under the RTI Act
(b) If data was not computerized for AY 2007-08 (FY 2006-07), how could
the data pertaining to ACAPS 2715 C was verified - especially the TDS
Component effected by the Bank. Kindly inform under the RTI Act.
(c) Taking into account the email submission of the TDS (1) Officer that
no such records for the Bank under CMBC03033C was available; is a
mockery in total. As the Office of Erstwhile Circle Coimbatore was a very
lig Office with a big team working therein, the TDS of all the staff were
made at the Circle Office and were remitted at the concerned office of
the IT Department. Hence it is a mockery in Total. As there were other
employees at that Office during the Period. Hence the matter requires to
be examined from the angle of a punitive action of the Assessee by the
ITO at NCW 4(4) and at ITO TDS WARD (1). Please inform under the RTI
Act.
(d) Total Negligence on the part of both the ITOs who, had not taken any
interest in providing a reasonable resolution of the Senior Citizen
Applicant under the RTI Act where attempts to search the manual
records and provide a grievance redressal was not attempted at any
stage and the replies were being recorded left and right under
CPGRAMS/PMO Grievance Portal without accepting the factual situation
in the matter of handling the TDS records at their respective office and
also in seeking of information from the respective Offices. Information in
respect of the factual situation in the matter is sought for under the RTI
Act.
(e) It has been mentioned that it is the duty of the Assessee to prove his
claim that the TDS of Rs.11330/- has been deducted from the Income of
the Assessee and the same was remitted by the Bank to the Govt of India
account, which the Assessee had failed to do so (page 3, para 5 of
ACAPS2715C/NCW-4(4/CBE/cpgrams dated 19the July 2023 when the
documents submitted by the Applicant under the RTI Act along with the
ROI was not referred by the ITO of NCW 4(4) due to the non taking of
efforts by the Concerned Officer to trace the manual records of 2007-08.
At the same time the position of the Applicant has not been considered
by the said Officer as to how the same would be possible to be fulfilled by
the Assessee who has been served the document ACAPS2715C/NCW-
4(4/CBE/cpgrams dated 19the July 2023 seeking for documents
Page 38 of 71
pertaining to 2006-07 page 02 last para. Matter needs to be explained
under the RTI Act by the Applicant.
(f) The fact of the said officers verifying the TDS Fact pertaining to the
Applicant for the succeeding FY/AY or its status, may kindly be clarified
to the Applicant in the reply made by the CPIO so as to establish the
genuinety of the act of the said Officers, as it is felt by the Applicant that
the fact was never examined/explored by the Officer in NCW 4 (4) or the
Officer of TDS WARD 1, CBE (Coimbatore) (SUBRAMANIAM
JEGANNATHAN) and a Senior Citizen was subjected to Character
Assasination; without any efforts put forth to look into the truth in the
matter. Kindly outline under the RTI Act.
On 23 Jan 2023, the Assessee's visit to the ITO TDS(1) WARD was
provided the reply that the computerization of data had taken place in
the AY 2007-08 and hence the records were not available for providing
the data for the FY 2006/07 as sought by the Assessee. Reference to 170
Mr. Jegannathan Subramaniam would provide the complete details.
Kindly ascertain the factual position and confirm the Information sought
in the matter as the subject ITO has categorically mentioned in his reply
mail provided along with other documents by NCW 4(4) Office that TDS
records of the Bank was not available (in System Search-true: It was in
manual environment and hence could not be traced). Just because the
Manual search involves manpower, the Assessee has been put to a lot of
hardship which needs to be resolved as a very special case, as the
Applicant has been put to a lot of hardship in the matter by the IT
Department and the EMPLOYER, both of whom are not interested in
resolving the issue of Double payment towards IT Dues for the AY 2007-
08. Information is sought under RTI Act in the subject matter.
It is reliably learnt that the Tappals received at the IT Department (PCIT-
1) are numbered/placed and delivered in the Office of the PCIT-1 through
an EXCEL SHEET where even the date of receipt is marked. Under such
circumstances, kindly provide the numbers /date of receipt marked in the
following:
a. Letter addressed in 2010 & 2016 by the Assessee to the ITO
b. Copies of the letters as above, handed over in person to the Officer of
NCW 4(4)
c. Letter dated 03/03/2023 addressed to PCIT 1 and sent by Registered
Post to PCIT
Page 39 of 71
d. Letter ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1053135855(1) dated 24/05/23
replied by email on 24/05/2013 (to the email copy received by the
Assessee at 4.46 PM from NCW 4(4) on 24/05/23-REPLIED the same day
by the Assessee (09.11PM))
Kindly permit the Applicant to reiterate sir, that the Applicant eagerly
awaits the replies to the query made in the RTI Application, which if not
replied, point to point specifically, kindly permit the Applicant to submit
that the matter would be taken as negligence on the part of the CPIO of
the Office to which the original RTI Application is made out. This is
because of the fact that the Reply to PMO COMPLAINT 0230987 has
been replied with little relevance to the facts in the subject matter of the
undue delay in handling matters pertaining to FY 2006-07 (AY 2007-08)
which was closed in 2020-2021 of the Applicant under the RTI Act.
Also, it would not be out of place to mention that the ITO at NCW 4(4)
and ITO at TDS WARD (i) are not ready to the provide a resolution to the
matter and pushing the matters again to the said Office with the matter
having been left to be handled/replied by the said Officers would not
bring out the information sought for in the Application and hence the
issue needs a fresh look and reply by, permit the applicant to state, by a
much more competent authority as the repeated visits to the said Office
of NCW 4(4) has not provided any fresh insight into the matter or a
resolution to the issue as beating round the bush continues without
viewing the matter from a FRESH ANGLE of helping the genuine TAX
PAYER/ASSESSEE / APPLICANT under the RTI ACT and the evidence lays in
the repeated stereotyped replies made by the said team to the
representations under CPGRAMS & PIMO Site."
8. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 17.02.2024
stating as under:
"The applicant has filed application under RTI Act before the CPIO, office
of the Joint Director of the Income Tax - TPS II, CBDT New Delhi. The
application was forwarded to this office and it was received in this office
on 19.01.2024.
It is pertinent to mention here that there are some
information/clarification sought by the applicant in this RTI application
which are not available with this office but may be available with more
than one CPIO.
Page 40 of 71
Hence, the applicant is advised to seek that information from the
concerned CPIO directly. The details of such information will be given in
forthcoming paragraphs.
(Please refer the DOPT's OM no.10/2/2008-IR dated 12.06.2008 and OM
dated 24.09.2010)
Further, on Perusal of the RTI petition of the applicant, it reveals that the
most of the information sought are not in the nature of information
within the meaning of section 2(f) nor do they come under the purview of
section 2(j) of the said Act.
In fact, the most of the information sought for are in the nature of "How,
why, what, where, when etc." and in such a scenario, the judgment of
the Hon'ble Central Information Commission in the case of Shri.
Devendra Kumar Meena vs Ministry of Corporate Affairs delivered on 20-
03-2023 throws extensive light on the subject matter.
For the sake of clarity and convenience, the same is reproduced here
below:-
ORDER
Shri Devendra Kumar Meena, hereinafter called the appellant, has filed the present complaint dated 16.8.2012 before the Commission against the respondent Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi for providing incomplete information in response to his RTI-application dated 3.11.2011. The appellant was absent whereas the respondent were represented by Shri R.C. Tully, Under Secretary/CPIO.
The appellant, through his RTI application dated 3.11.2011 sought information on the following two queries in response to Ministry's letter No. R-31011/21/0211-Vig dated 18.1.2012: "(1) Please furnish copy of reply to his notice dated 2.11.2011 u/s 80 Cr. P.C. and also inform the conclusion of examination as mentioned in reply dated 18.1.2012; and (2) Please also inform the facts mentioned in sanction order of prosecution were verified by the Department and what material was available before the Ministry". The CPIO vide letter No. R- 31011/01/2012-Vig dated 13.6.2012 replied to the appellant as follows:
"(1) provided a copy of communication in response to his notice dated2.11.2011. This reply is the conclusion of examination of his notice; (2) the information desired does not fall under the definition of Page 41 of 71 information as it occurs in Section 2(f) and 2(j) of the RTI Act, since the same is not held by nor under the control of the public authority."
Not satisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 15.6.2012 against non-furnishing the information on Point No. 2 of the RTI application.
The FAA vide his order No. R-31011/1/2012-Vig dated 13.7.2012 while upholding the reply of the CPIO, observed that as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, it is not open to an appellant to ask, in the guise of seeking information, questions to the public authorities about the nature and quality of their actions.
Furthermore, the Hon'ble CIC in the case of Shri G. Senthil Kumar v. Directorate of Health & Family Welfare Services in F.No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000838-YA have observed as under:-
Decision:
After hearing both the parties and on perusal of documents, the Commission observes that as deserving as the appellant might be for the post of Social Worker, he cannot ask interrogative questions from a public authority under the Act.
The public authority is not bound to answer queries like whether he would be considered for the post since he has crossed the age limit or whether he will be granted any age relaxation and whether his merit will be considered or not. Interrogative queries viz. "How/Why/When" do not come under the ambit of RTI Act.
The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information.
Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
Without prejudice to the case law cited supra, the reply pertaining to this office is furnished herewith-
1. Reply A. No information has been sought, hence, No comments.Page 42 of 71
Reply B. & C. The information/reply sought is partly pertaining to the O/o the Pr. CIT-1, Coimbatore.
Hence the applicant can seek that information from the O/o the Pr. CIT- 1, Coimbatore directly. (Please refer the DOPT's OМ по.10/2/2008-IR dated 12.06.2008 and OM dated 24.09.2010) No "Information" has been sought from this office. The assessee has asked the reason WHY. Please refer the case law sited supra.
Without prejudice to the above, it is to inform that as per the, ITD portal of the Department the applicant has claimed a TDS of Rs. 11,330/- from TAN- CMBC03033C (CANERA BANK, 166, TV SWAMY ROAD, R.S. PURAM COIMBATORE-641002).
Hence, a letter was sent to Canara Bank, 166, TV Swamy Road and the same was served by speed post. However, no response has been received from that office.
Reply D. The information/reply sought is partly pertaining to the ITO, TDS Ward-1, Coimbatore. Hence the applicant can seek that information from the concerned CPIO directly.
No "Information" has been sought from this office. The assessee has asked the reason HOW. Please refer the case law sited supra.
Without prejudice to the above, it is to inform that the exact date of computerization at the IT office concerned i.e. ITO NCW 4(4) and I.T. TDS Ward 1 is not available with this office. The same may be available with Deputy Director of System Coimbatore and/or ITO TDS Ward 1 Coimbatore.
Hence the applicant can seek that information from the concerned CPIO directly.
Reply E. The applicant has not proved that TDS claimed by him in his return has actually been deducted by his employer, hence, the penal guidelines for non remittance of TDS does not arise.
Further, the applicant can refer the CBDT Circular No. 8/2015 dated 14.05.2015 which says that the AO should pass order u/s-154 after Page 43 of 71 obtaining the TDS Certificate from the applicant on the basis of which claim has been made.) Reply F. The allegation of the applicant that there was false submission from this office under CPGRAM disposal is totally baseless and highly condemnable.
As per the, ITD portal of the Department the applicant has claimed a TDS of Rs. 11,330/- from TAN - CMBC03033C (CANERA BANK, 166, TV SWAMY ROAD, R.S. PURAM COIMBATORE-641002).
Hence, a letter was sent to Canara Bank, 166, TV Swamy Road calling for the details of TDS deducted from the applicant. The same fact was mentioned while disposing the CPGRAM filed by the assessee.
Reply 2.1. The time limit of processing of any return filed by any of the assessee is specified u/s- 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2.2. Time limit specified u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2.3. Time limit specified u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2.4. There is no SOP in this regard. The normal Practice for processing every return was within the time specified u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2.5. The normal practice for those years was as under:-
The demand/refund will be arrived at the time of processing the manual return in the ITD portal and the intimations u/s143(1) would be issued by speed post intimating the demand payable or refund receivable.
also. Further, the assessee can view all the demand payable by him in his E-filing portal 2.6. It depends on the case, quantum of demand payable and other many factors.
2.7. It depends on the case, quantum of demand payable and other many factors.Page 44 of 71
2.8. There is no delay either in processing the return filed by the applicant or intimating the demand to the assessee and it was well within the time allowed u/s 143(1).
2.9. The applicant cannot assume that the demand is rectified unless he received any order from the department intimating the reduction of demand as the raising of demand u/s-143(1) was intimated to the assessee.
2. 10 & 11 & 12. Please refer the reply to para 2.9 above.
It is seen that the applicant has registered on E-Filing Portal since 16.09.2011 and has filed his return of Income on e-filing portal from the assessment year 2013-14 onwards.
This demand would be available in his e-filing portal, which was raised on 10.03.2010. It was the responsibility of the applicant to file rectification petition to rectify the demand and follow it till the demand is rectified.
Further, it is to inform that whenever there is refund due to the assessee, the CPC-ITR will send intimation intimating the proposed adjustment of refund against the demand pending.
Hence, this is again a baseless allegation from the applicant that there was lapse or delay on the part of the Department to recover the demand.
2.13. No "Information" has been sought from this office. The assessee has asked the reason HOW. Please refer the case law sited supra.
Without prejudice to the above, it is again informed that the recovery of demand depends on various factors and there is no delay in the case of the applicant.
Without prejudice to the above, it is again informed that the recovery of demand depends on various factors and there is no delay in the case of the applicant.
Further, as mentioned in the forgoing para, whenever there is refund due to the assessee, the CPC-ITR will send intimation to the assessee intimating the proposed adjustment of refund against the demand Page 45 of 71 pending (by mail provided in the return of income filed in which refund is claimed).
If assessee files the response to that intimation by DISAGREEING WITH THE DEMAND then normally the CPC-ITR do not adjust the refund. If no response is submitted to that intimation to CPC then the refund will be adjusted by CPC-ITR.
2.14. & 15. There is no SOP in this regard. Further, refer the reply to the 2.13 above.
2.16. No "Information" has been sought from this office. The assessee has asked the reason HOW. Please refer the case law sited supra.
Further, the applicant was very much aware of the demand payable. There is no delay from the part of the Department.
2.17. The applicant has not filed any evidence to prove that he has submitted any rectification petition to the Department for rectifying the demand for A.Y. 2007-08 either in 2010 or 2016.
Without prejudice to the above, if the assessee has filed the copy of Form-16 or TDS certificate to the department in 2016 then he should have a copy of the same with him.
Further, the applicant has mentioned that he has parted with the necessary documents in 2010 & 2016 at the PCIT-1/IT Office at Race Course Road (that too without any evidence of having filed).
The applicant himself is not clear where he has submitted the required documents in 2010 & 2016. This gives strength of the view that the applicant has not filed any rectification petition and/or supporting documents either in 2010 or 2016.
2.18. a. Time limit as specified under Section 143(1) of the IT Act. b. The time of recovery of demand depends on various factors. There was no delay in recovery of tax from the applicant.
c & d. There is no delay in processing of return.
e & f. On the basis of Manual Return of Income filed by the applicant.
Page 46 of 71g & h. If there is no TDS Credit available, the demand will be raised by system automatically and the assessee will be intimated of the demand. It is the duty of the assessee to contact his employer and get the demand rectified.
In the case of the applicant also the intimation of the demand raised was intimated to the him in the year 2010 itself.
For the sake of natural justice, a letter was sent to Canara Bank, 166, TV Swamy Road calling for the details of TDS deducted from the applicant since, as per the, ITD portal of the Department the applicant has claimed a TDS of Rs. 11,330/- from TAN CMBC03033C (CANERA BANK, 166, TV SWAMY ROAD, R.S. PURAM COIMBATORE-641002).
Reply 19. There is no SOP in this regard.
Reply 20 & 21. No "Information" has been sought from this office. The assessee has asked the reason WHY. Please refer the case law sited supra.
Still, it is again informed that the applicant has failed to file any evidence for having submitted any rectification petition and or any supporting documents to the Department for rectifying the demand for A.Y. 2007-08 either in 2010 or 2016.
Since, the applicant was very much aware of his pending demand it cannot be construed that the demand of the applicant has been closed. Neither, the applicant can assume that the matter stood clear.
Reply. 22. It is again informed that the applicant was aware of the demand as it was appearing in his E-Filing portal. Hence, it was the duty of the applicant to take appropriate action to nullify the demand.
Reply 23. While, disposing the CPGRAME of the assessee, the same was already communicated that there is no document called ITAO. The assessee is already in possession of Intimation u/s-143(1).
Reply 24. There is no undue delay in recovering the tax from the applicant.
Reply 25. a & b & c. The normal process for processing the manual return for the A.Y. 2007-08 is Page 47 of 71 Wherever, the manual returns were filed by any assessee, the returns will be entered in the system of the Department (ITD) and it will be processed in the ITD portal. The demand/refund will be arrived and the same were intimated to the assessee through post.
The same process was done in the case of the assessee also.
During, the financial year 2008-09, manual returns were accepted from the eligible assessee.
25 d. Please find herewith the evidence of ROI filed by you and basis of calculation of tax payable (as taken from the ITD portal).
The copy of assessment made for the A.Y. 2007-08 in the case of the applicant is already available with the applicant 25 e. Time allowed u/s 143 (1).
25 f. Normally, no proof of TDS/Tax payment would have been asked by the Department at the time of processing the return of Income.
25 g. Not applicable.
25 h. The processing was completed on 10.03.2010 and the demand was communicated to the assessee.
25 i. Normally, within a couple of days from the processing the return, the intimation u/s 143(1) will be sent. The applicant is already in possession of the intimation u/s-143(1).
25 j & k. There are various method of proceeding for recovery of demand on the basis of the quantum of tax demanded, rectification petition filed, stay petition filed by the applicant, appeal filed by the applicant and so on.
25 l. Whenever there is refund due to the assessee, the CPC-ITR will send intimation to the assessee intimating the proposed adjustment of refund against the demand pending (by mail provided in the return of income filed in which refund is claimed).
It is seen that, the CPC/ITR has issued the intimation to the applicant.
Page 48 of 7125 m. i. As per the ITD portal the date of filing return is 28 July 2008. The same is evident to the reply of 25 d above.
ii. There was no delay in recovery of dues.
iii. Not applicable.
iv. There was no delay from on the part of Department. v. As mentioned above there is no delay on the part of Department on recovering the amount due.
25 n. The assessee has asked the reason HOW. Please refer the case law sited supra.
Further, the part of the information/reply sought by the applicant is pertaining to the ITO, TDS Ward-1, Coimbatore. Hence the applicant can seek that information from the concerned CPIO directly.
25 o. The exact date of computerization at Income Tax office, Coimbatore is not available with this office. It may be available with the Deputy Director of Income Tax (System), Coimbatore. Pl find herewith the basis on which it is said that the TDS credit was not available and hence, the demand was raised:-
25 p. The issue of mismatch in TDS can be rectified on submission of TDS certificate by the applicant as specified in circular 8 of 2015.
25 q.
i. Pl see the evidence for no TDS credit in reply no 25 o above. ii. There is no SOP.
iii. & iv Not Applicable.
v. 10.03.2010 vi. There was no delay.
vii. Pl refer section 143(1) of the IT Act.
raised. vii. Since, there was no TDS credit available in E-TDS data base, the demand was ix. Pl see the calculation attached in reply to 25 d above. x. The assessee is already in possession of the intimation u/s-143(1) showing the demand payable.
xd. The demand along with interest has been recovered by the CPC/ITR by way of adjustment of refund for the A.Y. 2020-21 and 2021-22. The amount of interest and methodology arrived at maybe sought from CPC/ITR xii. There was no delay in recovery.
xiii. The demand will be raised on account of non-credit of TDS and the intimation will be sent to the assessee available to the applicant. Once, Page 49 of 71 the assessee submits the necessary evidence for deduction and remittance of TDS, the same can be rectified.
xiv. Unless there is a proof of TDS deducted and remittance to demand can not be rectified. the Department the xv. The matter maybe discussed with the employer of the applicant. xvi. It varies case to case and depends on various factors xvii. Not applicable.
xviii. The grievance redressal mechanism is e-Nivaran, CPGRAM etc. xix. The applicant has not proved that his employer has actually deducted the TDS.
xox. It is again informed that the applicant was well aware of the demand payable by him which was available in his e-filing portal also. Hence, the delay in rectifying the demand is on the part of the applicant himself, xxi. Each Financial Year is different and the tax paid in the F.Y. 2005-06 or 2007-08 cannot be the basis to conclude that the tax has been paid in the FY. 2006-07 also.
Reply to the query raised in the second para of the page no 13 of the application:-
1. Yes.
2. E-Nivaran, CPGRAMS.
3. The information/quiry raised by the applicant is partly available with this office. The SOP for handling of the Tapalletter submitted by the applicant in my HIGHER AUTHORITIES'S OFFICE can be sought directly from the concerned CPIO.
The normal procedure adopted in this office is as under-
Whenever, a person files a Tapal/Letter in Aayakar Seva Kendra (ASK), he will get an acknowledgment from the ASK. The Tapal/Letter will be delivered in this office on the same day or the next day. The same (along with any other letter which is received through speed post) will be entered in the Inward Register of this office and serial no. is given after stamping on it.
1. The applicant has sent the mail on 24.05.2023 to the designated mail ID of this office.
This communication does not require any acknowledgment as it is evident that it was sent electronically.
Page 50 of 712. It was not proved by the applicant that the TDS has been deducted by his employer hence, penalty for Non Remittance does not arise.
3. As seen from the ITD Portal, the assessee has claimed a TDS from the TAN-CMBC03033C (CANERA BANK, 166, TV SWAMY ROAD, R.S. PURAM COIMBATORE-641002). Hence, a letter was sent to Canara Bank, 166, TV Swamy Road and the same was served by way of Speed Post. However, No response has been received from that office.
1 a. The date of computerization of Salary Records at the jurisdictional Office is not available with this office since this office has been created recently after merger of old 5 salary wards being Non Corporate Ward 5(1) to 5(5). The same may be available with the Deputy Director of System Coimbatore. The date of computerization of TDS Ward 1 Coimbatore may be with the Deputy Director of System Coimbatore and/or ITO TDS Ward 1 Coimbatore.
b. Please refer para 25 o above.
C No information has been sought except putting allegation against the department The matter pertaining to TDS maybe referred to ITO TDS Ward 1, Coimbatore directly.
Again, no information has been sought except putting allegation against the department/ITO without any evidence or substance in it.
It is worth mentioning here that this ward, being a Salary Ward, is having jurisdiction over all the Salaried/Pensioners assessee residing in Coimbatore.
The total number of return filer alone is 103185. The total no of demand pending is 510011.
As an average, 10 persons (Out of which, most of are pensioners/Sr. Citizen) are visiting this office with their problems, issues and queries. Many are having exactly same issue that of the assessee which was resolved after submission of the TDS certificate from the concemed Employer by the assessee himself.
e. It is again informed that the applicant was well aware of the demand payable by him since 2010. Hence, the delay in rectifying the demand is on the part of the applicant himself.
Page 51 of 71f. No information has been sought for. Again this is a baseless allegation of the applicant without any substance in it. Hence, not commented upon.
The applicant may seek the part of the Information directly from ITO, TDS Ward-1, Coimbatore.
Reply to Para 1 of Page No. 15-Since the matter pertains to ITO TDS Ward 1 Coimbatore, the applicant can seek the required information from that office directly.
Reply to Para 2 of Page No. 15- a & b. No evidence was filed for having submitted those documents.
c. The information may be sought from the office of PCIT-1, Coimbatore directly.
d. The applicant has sent the mail on 24.05.2023 to the designated mail ID of this office. This communication does not require any acknowledgment as it is evident that it was sent electronically.
Reply to the Last para of Page No.15- Again, it is a just an allegation of the applicant without any evidence and hence, not commented upon.
BACKGROUND OF THE PETITIONER'S CASE (In Brief) It is seen (from the ITD Portal of the department) that the applicant has filed his manual Return of Income for the A.Y. 2007-08 on 28.07.2008 claiming the income as Rs. 1,80,540/-.
The main sources of income is from Salary amounting to Rs. 3,01,147/-.
He has claimed a TDS of Rs.11,330/- from TAN CMBC03033C (CANERA BANK, 166, TV SWAMY ROAD, R.S. PURAM COIMBATORE-641002).
The return was processed on 10.03.2010 and since, there was no TDS credit available, a demand of Rs. 17,170/- was raised.
Page 52 of 71This demand along with Interest was adjusted with the refund for the A.Y. 2020-21 and 2021-22 by CPC-ITR.
Subsequently, the applicant has approached this office requesting to rectify the demand and issuance of the refund. Since, the demand for the A.Y. 2007-08 was raised due to TDS mismatch; he was requested to submit the TDS Certificate and/or Form-16 issued by his employer.
(As per the para 4.2 of the CBDT Circular No. 8/2015 dated 14.05.2015 which says that the AO should pass order u/s-154 after obtaining the TDS Certificate from the applicant on the basis of which claim has been made.) However, Mr. M. Suresh Kumar has not submitted the TDS Certificate and/or Form-16 issued by his employer.
In the absence of any proof of the TDS deduction and remittance to the department, the demand could not be rectified and the refund adjusted could not be issued.
PMOPG/E/2023/0133401, Meanwhile, the applicant has filed 7 CPGRAMs having no PMOPG/E/2023/0099462, PMOPG/E/20230099491, DARPG/D/2023/00011180, PMOPG/E/20230230987, PMOPG/E/2023/0246414 and PMOPG/E/2023/0246422 between May 2023 to November 2023.
All the CPGRAMs have been disposed after due consideration of the facts involved.
Further, a letter was sent to the Branch Manager, Canara Bank 166, TV SWAMY ROAD, R.S. PURAM COIMBATORE-641002 on 24.05.203 requesting for the following details:-
1. Form No.16 issued to Mr. M. Suresh Kumar, PAN- ACAPS2715C for the F.Y. 2006-07 relevant to the A.Y. 2007-08.
1. TDS Certificate for the F.Y. 2006-07 relevant to the A.Y. 2007-08.
2. Any other evidence showing that the TDS amount claimed by Mr. M. Suresh Kumar, in his ROI for the A.Y. 2007-08 is deducted and remitted to the Govt. of India account.
3. Any other details if you want to submit in this regard.Page 53 of 71
The letter was served by Speed Post on 27.05.2023 but, no response has been received so far.
Furthermore, a letter was sent to the ITO, TDS Ward-1, Coimbatore also, who is the Jurisdictional Officer of the TAN CMBC03033C, CANERA BANK, requesting for the following details:-
1. TDS Deducted by the Canara Bank having TAN-CMBC03033C from the above mentioned applicant for the F.Y. 2006-07 relevant to the A.Y. 2007-08.
2. Copy of TDS Return filed by the Canara Bank having TAN-
CMBC03033C for the F.Y. 2006-07 relevant to the A.Y. 2007-08.
In response, it was informed that no data is available with respect to the above deductor for the F.Y. 2006-07.
Hence, it is clear that undersigned has taken sufficient efforts to assist the applicant to make it evident that the TDS claimed by the applicant in his ROI for the A.Y. 2007-08 is actually deducted and remitted to the Govt. of India account.
The applicant has also failed to prove his claim that a TDS of Rs. 11,330/- has been deducted and remitted to the Govt. of India account.
Subsequently, he has filed an RTI application (on the similar lines/facts/allegations ) before the ITO (Hq.). O/o the Pr. CIT-1, Coimbatore.
The application was forwarded to this office as part of the information sought by the applicant was pertaining to this office.
The undersigned has disposed the RTI application vide this office order dated 05.02.2024. The applicant has filed appeal against that order. To summarise, from perusal of the aforesaid judgments by the Hon'ble CIC and going through the RTI petition, the information sought for by the petitioner is in the nature of making allegations against the Income Tax Department, the JAO, the ITO, TDS -Ward-1. Coimbatore. As held by the Hon'ble CIC in the cited judgment, it is not open for the present petitioner (Shri. M.Suresh Kumar), in the guise of seeking information, question the public authorities about the nature and quality of the actions.
Page 54 of 71Without evidences of tax payment or tax deduction at source, the appellant cannot question the public authority (viz.) in this case the JAO or the CPIO on the matter of disallowance of credit for TDS and raising a demand thereof.
The TDS claim made by the petitioner ought to be available in the Department software or there should be evidence in possession of the tax payer to substantiate that the tax has indeed been deducted and remitted to the Government of India Account.
Without any evidence, there are no discretionary powers vested upon the JAO to give manual credit for the TDS claim made by taxpayers and reduce the demand or issue of refund to the applicant.
Thus, from the above finding of the Hon'ble CIC, and the factum matrix of the instant case, it is amply clear that the petitioner, not satisfied with the action of the Department in raising a demand for non-credit of TDS claimed in the return of income, cannot raise allegations against the Department in the form of RTI application.
Please note that the RTI Act is "Right to Information Act" and not a "Right to Intimidate or Interrogate Act".
In view of the above, your RTI application is disposed in this office."
9. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.02.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 19.03.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
(4) CIC/CCACH/A/2025/100448 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23.04.2024 CPIO replied on : 21.05.2024 First appeal filed on : 19.06.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 16.07.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26.12.2024 Information sought:
10. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.04.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"DETAILS SOUGHT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT Page 55 of 71
1.DIN LETTER NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1053216089(1) Dated 26th May 2023 addressed to your office by ITO NCW 4(4) of PCIT-1 OFFICE, COIMBATORE (Copy Enclosed)
2. CPGRAMS NO. PMOPG/E/2023/0099491 filed by me
3. Email reply by your Office dated 15th June 2023 @ 0309PM addressed to Coimbatore ITO NCW 4(4) to the letter under Reference No. 01 above.
4. DD 598691-011043040118:598691 DT 22/02/24-Rs.10/- being the fee payable for seeking information under the RTI ACT.
5. Letter MSK 2920 IT 23 DATED 24th May 2023 addressed to ITO/NCW 4(4) on the subject.
This has reference to the above.
1.I am a Senior Citizen, Retired from Canara Bank where my Salary was subjected to TDS on a month to month basis which has been continued since 1990. My Return of Income (ROI) has also been completed on time every time. The Manual ROI for the FY 2006-07 (AY 2007-08) was no exception, which was filed on 28.07.2008 claiming the income as Rs. 1,80,540/-, along with the related enclosures including the Form 16 issued by Two Branches of Canara Bank where I had worked during the related Financial Year.
2. As per the Information provided by the ITO NCW 4(4) vide the communication ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1061075171(1) dated 17/02/24, the normal process for processing the manual return for the A.Y. 2007-08 followed by the office is:
"Wherever, the manual returns were filed by any assessee, the returns will be entered in the system of the Department (ITD) and it will be processed in the ITD portal. The demand/refund will be arrived and the same were intimated to the assessee through post".
However, when the ITD portal (shared by the ITO NCW 4(4) vide the letter above dated 17/02/24) is viewed it looks like the TDS Details" are not entered in the System of the Department (ITD)" at the time of uploading / entering the details in the SYSTEM OF THE DEPARTMENT (ITD).
3. The screenshot is reproduced here below:
Page 56 of 714. Kindly permit the Applicant to humbly submit the fact that this Application is made out by the Applicant under RTI Act with regard to the SUBJECT, which is mainly in respect of the following:
A. I have been informed by ITO NCW 4(4), the following in the subject matter:
"A letter was sent to the ITO, TDS Ward-1, Coimbatore also, who is the Jurisdictional Officer of the TAN-CMBC03033C, CANERA BANK, requesting for the following details:-
1. TDS Deducted by the Canara Bank having TAN- CMBC03033C from the above mentioned applicant for the F.Y. 2006-07 relevant to the A.Y. 2007-08.
2. Copy of TDS Return filed by the Canara Bank having TAN- CMBC03033C for the F.Y. 2006-07 relevant to the A.Y. 2007-08.
In response, it was informed that no data is available with respect to the above deductor for the F.Y. 2006-07.
B. The applicant has been, based on the reply by your Office in the subject matter, decided by the ITO NCW 4(4) that the petitioner had Page 57 of 71 failed to prove his claim that a TDS of Rs. 11,330/-for the FY 2006-07, has been deducted and remitted to the Govt. of India account by the Employer - CANARA BANK C. I shall be glad in case I AM INFORMED OF THE STATUS along with the complete details for all queries sought by ITO NCW 4(4), in respect of which the letter dated 26" May 2023, was addressed to your Office.
D. I would like to recall my visit to your Office, in respect of the same matter on 25th Jan 2023 (when the Petitioner had met in person the ITO TDS WARD 1-MR JEGANNATHAN, the visit having been recorded in the VISITORS REGISTER at your Office stating the purpose of visit in the same register), when I was informed by the ITO TDS WARD I, after going through the software in the System that the data which the Petitioner had sought for, from the said Office, as Proof of IT Recovery under TDS, could not be found, as the Office (ITO SALARY WARD DURING THAT PERIOD (FY 2006-07AY 2007-08) was in Manual Environment.
E. Hence it is a clearly established fact that the matter of the IT Software not carrying the TDS details of the Applicant under the RTI Act under his PAN ACAPS2715C was on account of the fact that the period of reckoning in the matter, was prior to the period of (IT) Department's Computerisation, as was informed by your kindself being the ITO TDS WARD I during the visit of the Petitioner to PCIT-1, Coimbatore, when he was asked by ITO NCW 4(4), to go over to your Office (ITO Salary Ward) on 25 Jan 2023. The ITO TDS WARD I, Sri. JEGANNATHAN had informed that the data which the Petitioner had sought for, from the said Office, as Proof of IT Recovery, could not be found as the Office (ITO SALARY WARD) DURING THAT PERIOD reckoned (FY 2006-07-AY 2007-08) was in Manual Environment.
F. In view of the above, the petitioner would like to kindly submit that the following is sought for from the ITO TDS SALARY WARD I:
1. TDS of the subject Petitioner was deducted at two Offices of Canara Bank and Two Sets of Form 16 evidencing the TDS so effected was issued by both the Offices of the Bank One issued by CANARA BANK, BUNGALOWPUDUR branch and the Second which was issued by Canara Bank, Erstwhile Circle Office, Coimbatore (which Office is closed now & merged with Circle Office, Chennai) which is a proof of the TDS effected by the Employer for the Employee (Applicant under RTI Act) Hence TDS Return should have been filed by both the Offices of Canara Bank at Page 58 of 71 Bungalowpudur (TAN CMBC 03912 PAN AAACC 6106 Q) and Erstwhile Circle Office, Coimbatore (TAN CMBC 03033C PAN AAACC6106Q) Kindly look into the matter and provide the details of the TDS Return filed by both the Offices which shall carry the details of the remittance in respect of the Petitioner for sure. Also the email reply in the matter could not be true as apart from the Petitioner. there were other staff too at the Office and hence the Returns ought to be available for sure in your Office.
2. The Exact date of Computerisation of the IT office concerned ie. I.T. O. TDS Ward-1 may kindly be informed as the same is sought under the RTI ACT by the Petitioner from CPIO, TDS Ward 1 Coimbatore.
3. The reply made out to the ITO NCW 4(4) by ITO TDS Ward I by email in response to Clause A above may kindly be elaborated with information on the following lines:
a. Information provided whether derived from Manual Return Filed by the Bank for the FY 2006-07 (AY 2007-08) b. Information provided whether derived from IT Portal Data as available for the FY 2006-07 (AY 2007-08) C. Information sought by ITO NCW 4(4) whether was not available only for ACAPS2715 C of M. Suresh Kumar d. Information sought for was whether available for other Staff of the Office of Canara Bank having TAN CMBC03033C e. Information sought for was also in respect of copy of TDS RETURN filed by Canara Bank having TAN- CMBC03033C. Kindly provide Information and Copy of the same.
G. The following are also shared in this document as proof of the fact that the Manual ROI for the AY 2007-08, which was filed by the Petitioner (as stated in 1 above) was uploaded in the system at ITD only in the AY 2008-09 Processing of the Manual ROI was done only on 16/02/2010 and Order was passed on 10 March 2010.Page 59 of 71
H. Kindly accept the Applicant's request under the RTI Act and do provide the relevant information in the matter at the earliest.
I. It would not be out of place to inform the following too with regard to the seeking of Information by the Petitioner in the matter: The following Screen Shot (which is shared by the ITO NCW 4(4)) which is relied upon in the matter:
a. Order Upon processing of the Manual ROI filed on 28/07/2008, was passed on 10% MARCH 2010.
b. Payments (TCS/TDS) Column is BLANK (INDICATING THAT THE TDS Data was not uploaded into the system by the ITD. c. The Assessed Income is Rs. 180540/-
d. The Net Tax Assesssed is Rs.11,330/ e. The Gross Demand (including Interest in the matter) is Rs.17173/- f. The date of sanction is 15/03/2010 Page 60 of 71 g. Due date in the matter for payment of Tax is 14/04/2010 J. In view of the above, ITD ITO NCW 4(4) has in the communication dated 17/02/24, had mentioned in their letter as follows:
The return was processed on 10.03.2010 and since, there was no TDS credit available, a demand of Rs. 17,170/- was raised.
Hence the RTI Application addressed to your Office in respect of the matter of TDS claimed by the Petitioner in the MANUAL ROI Filed on 28/07/2008, vide Information as sought above.
K. Kindly permit the Petitioner to bring to your kind attention that the DATA sought for is from the Manual Records available at the IT Department (ITO TDS Ward 1) and the reply based on any reference to the ITO PORTAL or Computerised Records available at ITO TDS WARD 1 would defeat the very purpose of providing information based on the latter as it has been established vide this communication that the Data referred by the ITO NCW 4(4) is the ITO PORTAL, wherein the data of TDS as contained in the Manual ROI filed by the Petitioner is omitted to be uploaded.
L. The Petitioner would like to point out with all fairness in the matter that it is a TOTAL CHARACTER ASSASINATION, which is resorted to by the Public Authority to bring out such a false allegation which is as follows:
a. FALSE TDS CLAIM OF Rs.11330/-BY THE PETITIONER b. TERMING THE SENIOR CITIZEN AS A DEFAULTER UNDER IT ACT CESTABLISHING WITH FALSE RECORDS THAT THE PETITIONER HAD NOT PAID TAX FOR THE FY 2006-07 (AY 2007-08) d. ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE TO THE EMPLOYER (TO A WRONG TAX DEDUCTION AUTHORITY) e. ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE-TO ONLY ONE OFFICE OF THE EMPLOYER, WHEN THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY WAS WELL AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE TAX DEDUCTION WAS AT TWO OFFICES, WHICH INFORMATION WAS MADE OUT VERY CLEARLY TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY-MORE THAN ONCE.
f. RESORTING TO WRONG APPROPRIATION OF REFUND DUE TO THE PETITIONER FOR A SUBSEQUENT YEAR TO THE DUES OF A PREVIOUS YEAR (AFTER 14 YEARS OF FILING OF ROI) Page 61 of 71 M. Kindly permit the Applicant, to make it clear and explicit that the replies are required in all matters contained in the Application made out under the Right To Information Act and if need be the matters may kindly be represented yet again or referred to the concerned departments or individuals or CPIOS or Public Authority of the respective offices concerned and a detailed reply made out in respect of the Application made to the Honourable Chief Public Information Officer/Authority with regard to the information sought for under the RTI Act."
11. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 21.05.2024 stating as under:
"The petitioner filed his return of income for the financial year 2006-07 relevant to assessment year 2007-08 manually on 28.07.2008 by admitting an income of Rs.1,80,540/-. The employer of the petitioner during the relevant period viz. Canara Bank having TAN-CMBC03033C had issued Form 16 and Rs.11,330/- was mentioned in Form 16 as TDS deducted as stated by the petitioner. The TDS credit was not available while processing return of income u/s 143(1). Therefore, demand of Rs.17,170/- was raised including interest in the intimation u/s 143(1). The petitioner had already collected some information from the jurisdictional assessing officer i.e. ITO, NCW 4(4), Coimbatore and ITO, TDS Ward-1, Coimbatore and filed this petition under RTI Act seeking certain further information.
ORDER UNDER SECTION 7(1) OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 In connection with the above grievance, the applicant sought for the following information u/s 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and parawise reply is furnished as below:-
a. Information provided whether derived from Manual return filed by the Bank for the FY 2006-07 (AY 2007-08) Reply: NO b. Information provided whether derived from IT Portal Data as available for the FY 2006-07 (AY 2007-08) Reply: Yes. Information derived from Income tax TRACES portal.
c. Information sought by ITO NCW 4(4) whether was not available only for ****2715C of M.Sureshkumar Page 62 of 71 Reply: Details of other person are personal in nature and hence the disclosure of information is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
d. Information sought for was whether available for other Staff of the Office of Canara Bank having TAN CMBC03033C Reply: Details of other person are personal in nature and hence the disclosure of information is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
e Information sought for was also in respect of copy of TDS RETURN filed by Canara Bank having TAN-CMBC03033C. Kindly provide information and copy of the same.
Reply: Details of other person are personal in nature and hence the disclosure of information is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act. 2005."
12. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.06.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 16.07.2024, held as under:
"The CPIO has held that "Details of other person are personal in nature and hence the disclosure information is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005" and disposed off the application filed under the RTI Act.
Aggrieved, the appellant has filed an appeal before the appellate authority to provide the information sought The Appellant's case has been duly considered. Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 reads as under:
"(1) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person."
The information sought is general in nature and does not fall under the exempted category of personal information u/s 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In view of the above, the disclosure of information Page 63 of 71 sought is justifiable. Hence, the Central Public Information Officer & Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 1, Coimbatore is directed to provide the complete information sought by the appellant vide Sl.No.1, 2 & 3 of the Petition and the appeal filed by the appellant is disposed accordingly."
13. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent No. 1: Ms. Priya Pramod, ITO (Hqrs) and CPIO present through video conference.
Respondent No. 2: Ms. A M Sajna, ITO/ NC Ward 4(4), Coimbatore present through video conference.
Respondent No. 3: Ms. Uma Maheshwari, ITO/CPIO, TDS Ward 1, Coimbatore present through video conference.
14. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 16.04.2024 is not available on record. The Respondents confirm non-service.
15. The Appellant remained absent during hearing despite prior intimation.
16. The Respondents submitted that a point-wise reply along with relevant available information has already been provided to the Appellant in each case vide letters dated 07.12.2023, 05.02.2024, 17.02.2024 and 21.05.2024 which was affirmed by the FAA while disposing of the First Appeals. Further, the issue raised by Appellant in the instant Appeal regarding his TDS credit for financial year 2007-2008 has already been resolved during pendency of this Second Appeal and an amount of Rs. 14,860/- has been credited to the Appellant as TDS refund on 13.08.2025.
17. The Respondents sought time from the Commission to file a written submission in this case which was allowed by the Bench.
18. Post-hearing, in case File No. CIC/CCIB1/A/2024/11345, the Commission is in receipt of a written submission dated 10.11.2025 from the Respondent Page 64 of 71 No. 1, Ms. Priya Pramod, ITO (Hqrs) and CPIO, which is taken on record. A copy of which has already been marked to the Appellant. Relevant extracts of which are reproduced below for ready reference:
"(3) BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE The assessee, Shri. M. Suresh Kumar, a retired Canara Bank employee, had filed his manual Return of Income for the A.Y. 2007-08 on 28.07.2008, admitting the returned Income of Rs.1,80,540, The main source of income is from salary amounting to Rs.3,01,147 received from Canara Bank. The Return of Income was processed us 143(1) on 10.03.2010 raising a demand of Rs. 17,170/-
This demand was adjusted against the refund for the A.Ys. 2020-21 and 2021-22 by the CPC-ITR. Subsequently, the assessee approached the JAD viz ITO, Non-Corporate Ward -4(4), Coimbatore to rectify the demand for the AY 2007-08 as this demand was raised due to TDS mismatch.
On verification of ITD portal, i was reported by the JAD that the assessee had claimed a TDS of Rs. 11,330/- from TAN: CMBC03033C (Canara Bank, 166, TV Swamy Road, RS Puram, Coimbatore-641002). Since there was no TDS credit available in the system, the assessee was requested to submit the TDS Certificate and/or Form 16 issued by his employer. This action of the JAO was in lines with the para 4.2 of the CBDT Circular No. 8/2015 dated 14.05.2015 which says that the AO should pass order uls 154 after obtaining the TDS Certificate from the assessee on the basis of which claim has been made. In response to this, the assessee could not submit the requisite TDS Certificate of Form 16 to the JAC iv. In this regard, following are the communications made by the assessee with this office vir O/o the PCIT-1, Coimbatore Sl. No. Communication by Action Taken by in the PCIT-1, Coimbatore the assessee 1 Grievance letter Forwarded to the JAD (viz.) ITO, Non-Corp.
dated 03.03.2023 Ward 4(4), Coimbatore vide this office letter dated 10.03.2023 for necessary action at JAO's end Page 65 of 71 2 RTI petition dated Disposed by the CPIO (viz.) ITO(HQ-1), O/o 28.11.2023 the PCIT-1, Coimbatore vide order dated 07/12/2023 passed uls 7(1) of RTI Act, 2005 (copy uploaded) 3 RTI First Appeal Disposed by the Appellate Authority (viz.) dated 20.12.2023 PCIT-1, Coimbatore vide order dated 18.01.2024 passed us 19(6) of the RTI Act, 2005. (copy uploaded) (4) PRAYER With the above background of the case as narrated above, it is humbly prayed before the Hon'ble Information Commissioner that the RTI petition and the First Appeal filed by the applicant have been duly disposed of with all the requisite information within time limit as per RTI Act, 2005. No further action is pending in this office in this regard.
Submitted for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Commissioner. This letter is issued with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Coimbatore (First Appellate Authority)."
19. In case File No. CIC/CCACH/A/2024/117575 and CIC/CCACH/A/2024/120707, a copy of rectified computation sheet has been filed by Ms. A M Sajna, ITO/CPIO, NC Ward 4(4), Coimbatore (Respondent No. 2 herein) which is taken on record.
20. Further, in case File No. CIC/CCACH/A/2025/100448, a written submission dated 10.11.2025 (copy marked to the Appellant) has been filed by Ms. V. Uma Maheshwari, ITO/CPIO, TDS Ward-1 (Respondent No. 3 herein) which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:
"...2. The information sought in respect of issues relating to TDS matters emanated from non-granting of TDS credit by ITO, NCW 4(4), Coimbatore based on absence of TDS credit in the ITD system though credits were purportedly available in Form 16 as claimed by the applicant. The applicant had sought details relating to TDS returns filed by the deductor Canara Bank, Bangalowpudur (TAN: CMBC03912G) and Canara Bank, Page 66 of 71 erstwhile Circle Office, Coimbatore (TAN-CMBC03033C) to corroborate his TDS claims.
3. The queries & Order were addressed vide DIN No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1066810125(1) dated 18.07.2024 by CPIO & Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward-1, Coimbatore vide Give-effect proceeding (TAN based cases) to give effect to the Appeal Order of First appellate authority dated 16.07.2024.
4. Without prejudice to the above, it is humbly stated that the crux of the issue being non-grant of TDS credit, has since been addressed/resolved by the Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 4(4), Coimbatore. As a result, there is no demand due from the applicant as on date and refund adjusted against the demand has been issued vide DIN & Document No. ITBA/REC/S/91/2025-26/1080134515(1) dated 28.08.2025.
5. In view of the above, it is humbly prayed before the Hon'ble Information Commissioner that the RTI petition filed by the applicant Shri. M. Suresh Kumar has been duly disposed of, with all the requisite information as available in this office, within time limit as per RTI Act, 2005. No further action is pending in this office in this regard.
Submitted for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Commissioner. This letter is issued with the prior approval of the Addl. Commissioner of Income tax, TDS Range, Coimbatore( First Appellate Authority)."
Decision:
21. The Commission, at the outset observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the information sought in instant RTI Applications are cumbersome, extremely voluminous, requires compilation, indeterminate in nature and it does not even conform to Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012. Despite this, Respondents tried to organize the same into clearly defined points while giving point-wise reply to the RTI application.
22. Even if, the Commission was to empathetically consider the concerns raised by the Appellant through the Second Appeal, he is reminded of the fact that his right to information is far from being absolute and unconditional. That, it is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions has to not only stand Page 67 of 71 the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by the superior Courts in a catena of judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties." (Emphasis added)
23. Now as far as relief of information is concerned, the Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondents Page 68 of 71 and perusal of the records observes that the issue raised in the matter has been resolved by the Respondent now by reconciling the income tax statement of the assessee and with the refund of Rs. 14,860/- on 13.08.2024 i.e. after a period of over 192 months that too after filing of Second Appeal by the Appellant.
24. Accordingly, the Commission expresses severe admonition over the conduct of Respondent Public Authority in causing inordinate delay in redressing the grievance of the Appellant and making him run from pillar to post for his no faults. The replying Respondent is hereby cautioned to be careful in future and follow the timeline mandates in facilitating the information to the Appellant in the spirit of the RTI Act failing which penal action may be initiated against them as per the Act.
25. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission has come across similar issue in case titled Shri D Pitchaimuthu v. CPIO, ITO, Tirunelveli & Others (File No. CIC/CCACH/C/2024/602699 & Others) where notice was issued to the applicant as an assessee, however, the DDO was not made a party to the matter who is the actual deductor of TDS. In the matter, the Bench has made the following observations -
"........83. A pertinent issue emanating from the instant cases is that while notice to the assessee is issued promptly and automatically but the same parameter is not applied to the DDO/Deductor resulting in an avoidable harassment of the assessee/deductee who is a salaried employee. Thus, leaving the deductee/salaried employee/assessee generally to fend for themselves going and begging before both i.e. the DDO and the Income Tax Authorities despite having paid the tax well in time. The notice to the assessee is issued automatically through a faceless system without any manual interference because the system is now fully computerised, automated, faceless and nameless. However, for the DDO to be brought on notice simultaneously in such cases, there is no automated system for issuing notices to the concerned DDO (deductor) for any default on their part. This apparent discriminatory treatment of the two (deductee on one hand and the deductor on the other) can be addressed by a simple intervention of issuing notice to both simultaneously.Page 69 of 71
84. In view of the above, it is deemed fit to issue advisory for addressing the discrimination as noted above. Accordingly, an advisory under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act is issued to the Respondent Public Authority to explore possibility of synchronising the issuance of notices simultaneously to the deductee and as well as to the DDO concerned for an efficient and early resolution by forcing both to file replies within the same timeframe. This simple measure can help an honest salaried taxpayer who doesn't receive TDS credit because of the default of the DDO (deductor) which leads to a tax demand against them and ultimately making them suffer hardships and mental agony. In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the CPIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking necessary action."
26. The above advisory holds good for the instant case as well. In pursuance of aforesaid advisory, the Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to place a copy of this order before their concerned Competent Authority.
27. FAA to ensure compliance of the directions.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, O/o the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore - 641018 Page 70 of 71 Copy To:
The FAA Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Non- Corp Range 4, 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore - 641018 Copy To:
The FAA Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Non- Corp Range 1, 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore - 641018 Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), 1510, First Floor, Mayflower Midi City, Trichy Road, Coimbatore - 641018 Page 71 of 71 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
1. Any other recommendation(s) to secure compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005-
Section 25 (5) of The RTI Act Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)