Central Information Commission
Shri Meghram Choudhary vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 21 January, 2009
MeghramChoudharyCBDTChennai211 1
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.308, B wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01032
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01033
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01034
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01035
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01036
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01037
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01038
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01039
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01040
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01041
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01042
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01043
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01044
Appellant: Shri Meghram Choudhary
Public Authority: Central Board of Direct Taxes
(through Shri V.K. Pandey, Director,
Income Tax(Inv), Chennai and
Shri R.K. Mishra, Addl. Director of
Income Tax(Inv), Chennai)
Date of Hearing: 21/01/2009
Date of Decision: 21/01/2009
FACTS:-
The matter, in short, is that, the Appellant has been an informer of the Income Tax Department and continues to be one. Based on his information, the officials of the Income Tax Department have launched punitive action against the tax evaders as per the provisions of law. He has been given rewards from time to time on case to case basis as per "Guidelines for Grant of Rewards to Informants, 1993" formulated by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Central Board of Direct Taxes).
2. Dissatisfied with the quantum of rewards granted to him and also delay in the grant of such rewards, he filed two RTI applications on 04/04/2007 before Director of Income Tax (Investigation) [DIT(Inv.) hereinafter]. Subsequent thereto, he filed two RTI applications on 08/05/2007 before DIT(Inv.), Chennai, asking for exactly the same information. These RTI applications were disposed of by shri S.C. Kabra, DIT(Inv.), vide his consolidated order dated 13/09/2007. In para 4 of the order, the CPIO had mentioned that the Appellant had sought information like date of filing of return; whether assessment had been completed and how much money was collected towards Income Tax etc. and he had refused to disclose information, being third party information, in terms of MeghramChoudharyCBDTChennai211 2 section 8(1)(e)(h)&(j) of the RTI Act. In para 5 of the order, the CPIO had dealt with the request of the Appellant seeking information on issues such as when he will get audit certificate; reason for delay; when he will be paid final reward and how long will it take for settlement by the Settlement Commission, etc. The CPIO had held that the information sought by the Appellant was not information in terms of section 2(f) of the RTI Act and had, therefore, declined to disclose any information on the above mentioned points. The CPIO had also mentioned in the order that for the settlement of final reward payable to him, it was for the Appellant to approach the concerned Assistant Directors of IT(Inv.) to redress his grievance by way of dealing with the matters expeditiously. As to the query of the Appellant about the maximum reward money payable to him, in para 8 of his order, the CPIO had mentioned that as per the guidelines issued by the Department of Revenue, the maximum amount payable was 10% of the total additional taxes collected by the Income Tax Department pursuant to the information given by the Appellant etc.
3. Aggrieved with the CPIO's order, the Appellant had filed the first Appeal before the first Appellate Authority vide his letter dated 26/11/2007. The Appellate Authority, had heard the matter on 17/12/2007 and decided the Appeal vide his order dated 20/12/2007 holding therein that the Appeal had become time-barred.
4. Aggrieved with the order of the first Appellate Authority, the Appellant had filed above said 13 Appeals before this Commission arising out of the same matter.
5. Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01032 was fixed for hearing on 29/12/2008. The Appellant appeared before the Commission but no officer from the Income Tax Department could appear due to disruption of flight schedules. Hence, the matter was adjourned to 21st January, 2009.
6. As scheduled, the matter was heard on 21/01/2009. The Appellant is before the Commission. The Income Tax Department is represented by the officers named above. Shri V.K. Pandey would submit that the Appellant had filed two RTI applications referred to in para 1 above and they were decided by the CPIO vide a consolidated order dated 13/09/2007. He would also submit that the Appellant had filed a single appeal before the first Appellate Authority which was decided by the AA by order dated 20/12/2007. It is his submission that the 13 Appeals filed by the Appellant have arisen out of the single Appellate order and, therefore, they could be disposed of by a consolidated order by this Commission. The Appellant has no objection to this. Hence, it has been decided to dispose of the above mentioned 13 Appeals through a consolidated order.
7. I have carefully perused the order of CPIO and that of the AA. I have also perused records of 13 Appeals filed by the Appellant. The long and short of the matter is that he has sought certain information under the RTI Act from the CPIO essentially relating to inadequate payment, delayed payment or non-payment of reward money to him. The submissions made by the Appellant are enumerated herein under:-
MeghramChoudharyCBDTChennai211 3(i) that he has been painstakingly collecting information about the tax evaders and furnishing the same to the concerned officers of the Income Tax Department but the reward money is not being paid to him in real time and as per rules and procedures;
(ii) that where payment has been made, it had been grossly inadequate vis-à-
vis the additional taxes collected by the Income Tax Department;
(iii) that there has been undue delay in granting him reward money in some cases;
(iv) that there was no deliberate delay on his part in filing the first Appeal inasmuch as the CPIO had passed his order on 13/09/2007 making an endorsement therein to the concerned Assistant Directors of Income Tax (Investigation), directing them to send a comprehensive report by 30/09/2009. He had then written a letter dated 15/10/2007 to the CPIO seeking clarification in this matter. DIT(Inv.) had responded to the Appellant on 31/10/2007 by saying that it was an internal matter of the Department. It is his submission that the period of first Appeal should be reckoned from 31/10/2007 and not from the date of CPIO's order.
8. As per contra, Shri V.K. Pandey would make the following submissions:-
(i) that whatever information was sought by the appellant under the RTI Act has been provided to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act;
(ii) that the first AA has held that the first Appeal filed by the Appellant has become time-barred. It is for the Commission to take a view whether to uphold the decision or not;
(iii) that the grant, non-grant or inadequate grant of reward money does not fall in the domain RTI and, yet, if the Commission passes any orders in this regard, the same shall be complied with; and
(iv) that vide notification dated 28/03/2008, Director General of Income Tax(Investigation), has been included in Second Schedule appended to the RTI Act, 2005, and, therefore, this Act is not applicable to this Organisation.
9. As mentioned at the very outset, the RTI applications filed by the Appellant before the CPIO, do not appear to have been so much meant to seek information under the RTI Act but they appear to be directed at persuading/coaxing the concerned officers of Income Tax Department to decide his reward matters in just, fair, equitable, and expeditious manner. The concerns of the Appellant are unexceptionable. The Appellant has also agitated against the order of the AA holding his first Appeal to be time-barred. As far as the delay in the filing of the first Appeal is concerned, it is noted that proviso appended to sub section (3) of section 19 of the RTI Act empowers the First AA to admit the Appeal even after the expiry of a period of 30 days, if he is satisfied that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in filing an Appeal. Further, as noted in para 6(iv) above, the Appellant has given a convincing justification for so called delay in the filing of the first Appeal.
MeghramChoudharyCBDTChennai211 4DECISION
10. In view of the above discussion, the following order is passed:-
(i) The first Appeal filed by the Appellant cannot be held to be time-barred as held by the first AA in his order dated 20/12/2007. The Director General of Income Tax (Inv.), Chennai (AA), is hereby directed to hear the first Appeal afresh and pass an appropriate orders in the matter.
(ii) The Commission cannot intervene in the pending reward matters of the Appellant. Even so, the Commission directs DGIT(Inv.), Chennai, to have the pending reward matters of the Appellant processed expeditiously in a fair, just and equitable manner, as per the prevailing rules/guidelines.
11. The 13 Appeals referred to above are disposed of subject to the above directions.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.L. Das) Assistant Registrar Tele: 011 2671 73 53