Central Information Commission
Sarfaraz Ahmad vs Direcot General Of Income Tax (Inv.) ... on 17 March, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos: CIC/DGITL/C/2024/655606 and CIC/DGITL/A/2025/602026
Sarfaraz Ahmad ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Principal
Director of Income-Tax
(Investigation), 16/116,
Civil Lines, Kanpur - 208001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16.03.2026
Date of Decision : 17.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Second Appeal as well as the Complaint are clubbed
together as the Appellant/Complainant as well as the Respondent are same
and subject-matter is similar in nature and hence are being disposed of
through a common order.
File No. CIC/DGITL/C/2024/655606
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 17.11.2024
CPIO replied on : 12.12.2024
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13.12.2024
CIC/DGITL/C/2024/655606 and CIC/DGITL/A/2025/602026
Page 1 of 8
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 17.11.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"A Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) along with its enclosures was filed on pmopg.gov.in, a grievance portal (registration number: PMOPG/E/2024/0164572) which was transferred to Director General of Income Tax (Inv), Lucknow for necessary action thereon on dated 13.11.2024. (copy attached) Please provide the following information-
1) What action has been taken on TEP/grievance till now?
2) Who is the investigating officer assigned for the TEP/complaint?
3) What is the phone number and designation of the Investigating Officer?"
2. The CPIO furnished a point - wise reply to the Complainant on 12.12.2024 stating as under:
"Point no. 1 to 3 - The requisite information has been sought in the shape of Question. As per provision of RTI Act, 2005, the information could not sought in the shape of Question. The information should be sought as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
File No. CIC/DGITL/A/2025/602026 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.12.2024 CPIO replied on : 12.12.2024
CIC/DGITL/C/2024/655606 and CIC/DGITL/A/2025/602026 Page 2 of 8 First appeal filed on : 13.12.2024 First Appellate Authority's order : 07.01.2025 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13.01.2025 Information sought:
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.12.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"A Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) along with its enclosures was filed on pmopg.gov.in, a grievance portal (registration number:
PMOPG/E/2024/0164572) which was transferred to Director General of Income Tax (Inv), Lucknow for necessary action thereon on dated 13.11.2024. (copy attached) Please provide the following information-
1) The action taken report/status report on TEP / grievance till the date of reply of this RTI
2) Name of the Investigating officer assigned for the TEP/complaint.
3) Phone number and designation of the Investigating Officer
4) Copy of documents/notices send or received by the investigating officer."
6. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 12.12.2024 stating as under:
"Point no. 1 to 3 - The requisite information has been sought in the shape of Question. As per provision of RTI Act, 2005, the information could not sought in the shape of Question. The information should be sought as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
CIC/DGITL/C/2024/655606 and CIC/DGITL/A/2025/602026 Page 3 of 8
7. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.12.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 07.01.2025, held as under:
"The contention of the appellant has been considered. It is seen from the order of CPIO dated 12.12.2024 attached with the appeal petition of the appellant that the same has been rendered in the context of his RTI application dated 17.11.2024 whereas the present appeal has been filed in respect of RTI application dated 13.12.2024.
It would, therefore, be in order if the CPIO is requested to immediately consider the RTI application dated 13.12.2024 filed by the appellant in keeping with the extant provisions of RTI Act, 2005 and I order accordingly."
8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant/Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Srivastav, Income Tax Officer/CPIO, appeared through video conference.
9. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service. Thus, Regulation No. 10 of the Central Information Commission Management Regulations 2007 has not been complied with by the Appellant.
10. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 11.03.2026 disclosing complete facts of the case, coy of the same is marked to the CIC/DGITL/C/2024/655606 and CIC/DGITL/A/2025/602026 Page 4 of 8 Appellant/Complainant and requested the Commission to place the same on record. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under
"02. Before proceeding further, it is imperative that the facts and chronology of the case are re-visited. It is seen from the records that the appellant filed RTI application via on-line mode bearing Registration No. DGTLK/R/E/24/00195 dated 17.11.2024. In the said petition, the applicant sought to know the following information against the Tax Evasion Petition filed by him, is as under:-
a. What action has been taken on TEP/grievance till now. b. Who is the investigating officer assigned for the TEP/complaint. C. What is the phone number and designation of the Investigating officer?"
03. After considering the application of the appellant, the CPIO, O/o Pr. Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Kanpur passed an order u/s 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 on 12.12.2024 intimating the appellant that the requisite information could not sought in the shape of question. The information should be sought as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
04. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed an on-line appeal bearing Registration No. DGTLK/A/E/24/00018 dated 12.12.2024 before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), which was considered by the FAA in his order dated 06.01.2025 and passed an order u/s 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, with the direction that:
"A perusal of records as available in this office, the order of the CPIO dated 12.12.2024 and the appeal petition shows that the applicant sought certain information regarding the TEP filed by him. The said application dated 17.11.2024 of the applicant before the CPIO was required to be decided as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The information sought can be in any form as long as it is in the ambit of 'information' as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Be that as it may, it would be in the interest of natural justice and fair play that the CPIO is directed to examine the matter afresh and pass a speaking order, in terms of the provisions of RTI Act, 20054, not later than 12.01.2025."
CIC/DGITL/C/2024/655606 and CIC/DGITL/A/2025/602026 Page 5 of 8
05. Thereafter, the CPIO, O/o Pr. Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Kanpur passed an order u/s 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 dated 10.01.2025 in compliance with the direction issued by the First Appellate Authority and intimating the appellant that even though the Directorate General of Income Tax [Investigation] has been specifically exempted from disclosure of information u/s 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 vide DOPT's notification GSR 235[E] dated 27.03.2008 yet the Tax Evasion Petition filed by him has been received in this office and action on the same is being taken in accordance with the instructions/guidelines issued by the CBDT, New Delhi from time to time in this regard. Some decisions of the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi are as under:
Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs Union Bank of India & Ors [W.P] (C) 83/2014] dated 03.02.2014 CBDT v. Satya Narayan Shukla in W.P. [C] No. 5547/2017 dated 19.02.2018 Principal Director of Income Tax [Investigation-2] v. Rajiv Yaduvanshi & others in [CRL.M.C. 2140/2020] dated 06.11.2020
05. The Hon'ble CIC, too, has consistently held that the exemption clause of Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 would apply to the Investigation Directorate and it would be suffice if the applicant is intimated about the Status of his Tax Evasion Petition, as under:
Naval Singh v. CPIO, O/o Pr. DIT [Inv.], Kanpur [CIC/CBODT/A/2022/114379]-08.02.2023. Netrapal Shastri v. CPIO, O/o Pr. DIT[Inv.], Kanpur [CIC/CCAKP/A/2021/128048]-08.02.23.
Amarjeet Singh v. PDIT[Inv.], Kanpur [CIC/CCAKP/A/2021/151803]-10.11.2022. Santraj Yadav v. CPIO, O/o DGIT, Lucknow [CIC/CCITL/A/2018/165849]-23.07.2022. Dadhich Singh v. CPIO, O/o PDIT[Inv.], Lucknow [CIC/DGITL/A/2019/602298]-18.06.2020 CIC/DGITL/C/2024/655606 and CIC/DGITL/A/2025/602026 Page 6 of 8
06. In the light of the foregoing facts and legal position, it is most respectfully submitted that the appeal of the appellant, which is devoid of merit, may kindly be considered accordingly."
11. Further, the Respondent informed that the Appellant's TEP was categorized as "C".
Decision
12. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, notes that the Appellant/Complainant did not appear for the hearing despite due service of notice. In the absence of the Appellant/Complainant, the submissions made by the Respondent remain uncontroverted.
13. The Commission observes that the initial reply of the CPIO dated 12.12.2024 was not in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, as merely stating that information cannot be sought in the form of questions is not a valid ground for blanket denial under the Act. However, it is noted from the records that pursuant to the directions of the First Appellate Authority, the CPIO re-examined the matter and provided a revised reply dated 10.01.2025, wherein it was clarified that the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) is an organization exempted under Section 24 of the RTI Act.
14. The Commission further notes that as per the settled legal position, information pertaining to organizations exempted under Section 24 of the RTI Act is not liable to be disclosed, except in cases involving allegations of corruption or human rights violations, which have not been established in the present case. However, the Respondent has fairly informed that the Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) filed by the Appellant has been processed as per the prescribed procedure.
15. During the course of hearing, the Respondent additionally informed that the Appellant's TEP has been categorized as "C". The Commission observes that such disclosure sufficiently indicates the status of the complaint filed by the Appellant and meets the limited obligation of disclosure as per the prevailing legal framework governing TEP related matters.
CIC/DGITL/C/2024/655606 and CIC/DGITL/A/2025/602026 Page 7 of 8
16. In view of the above facts, the Commission is of the considered opinion that adequate and appropriate response has been provided by the Respondent in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and the applicable exemptions. No mala fide intent or deliberate denial of information is discernible on the part of the Respondent. Accordingly, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in these matters.
The Second Appeal and Complaint are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Sd/-
(S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date The FAA, Office of the Principal Director of Income-Tax (Investigation), 16/116, Civil Lines, Kanpur - 208001 CIC/DGITL/C/2024/655606 and CIC/DGITL/A/2025/602026 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)