Central Information Commission
Radha Raman Tripathy vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 22 May, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626734 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626735
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626739 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626740
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625283 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625284
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625285 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625296
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625303 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625306
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625462 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625467
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625474 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626577
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626579 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626726
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626727 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626730
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626741 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626750
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626578 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626965
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623653 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626960
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/639354 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625503
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623655 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623656
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624858 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625500
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/633118 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/634439
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626974 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626975
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623630 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624857
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625475 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625490
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623615 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624262
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/638692 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623613
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623626 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624261
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624848 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625501
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/638715 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/639362
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/639365 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623625
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623658 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624844
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624861 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625669
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625671 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/633099
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/633110 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/634438
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/634561 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/634562
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/634563 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/633122
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/633109 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/634435
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/634434 CIC/CCITM/C/2023/638696
Page 1 of 78
RADHA RAMAN TRIPATHY ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
O/o the Pr. Chief Commissioner
of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan,
M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400 020 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17.05.2024
Date of Decision : 21.05.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 06.10.2022 20.09.2022 01.06.2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 30.05.2023 24.05.2023 23.05.2023
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626734
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06-10-2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.Page 2 of 78
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626735 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06-10-2022 seeking the following information:Page 3 of 78
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground. The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.Page 4 of 78
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626739 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06-10-2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground. The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.Page 5 of 78
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626740 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06-10-2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.Page 6 of 78
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625283 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20-09-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN-AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.Page 7 of 78
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625284 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01-06-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN-AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.Page 8 of 78
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625285 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20-09-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN-AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Page 9 of 78 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625296 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20-09-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN-AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.Page 10 of 78
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625303 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20-09-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN-AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.Page 11 of 78
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625306 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20-09-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN-AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."Page 12 of 78
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625462 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20-09-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN-AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625467 Information sought:
Page 13 of 78The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20-09-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN-AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625474 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20-09-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN-AARPH0661H) for Page 14 of 78 settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626577 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06-10-2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.Page 15 of 78
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."Page 16 of 78
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626579 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06-10-2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time Page 17 of 78 of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626726 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06-10-2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.Page 18 of 78
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626727 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06-10-2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.Page 19 of 78
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626730 Information sought:
Page 20 of 78The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06-10-2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.Page 21 of 78
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626741 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06-10-2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.Page 22 of 78
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626750 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06-10-2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.Page 23 of 78
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626578 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06-10-2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to Page 24 of 78 disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.Page 25 of 78
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626965 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06-10-2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.Page 26 of 78
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623653 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page Page 27 of 78 of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2 .
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today"
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623655 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2 .
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.Page 28 of 78
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today"
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626960 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06-10-2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.Page 29 of 78
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/639354 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06-10-2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.Page 30 of 78
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625503 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20-09-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN-AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.Page 31 of 78
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623655 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.Page 32 of 78
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given. It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2 .
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623656 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.Page 33 of 78
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2 .
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today"
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624858 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01-06-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.Page 34 of 78
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today"
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625500 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20-09-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN-AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/633118 Page 35 of 78 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2 .
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today"
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/634439 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny Page 36 of 78 on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2 .
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today"
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626974 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06-10-2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.Page 37 of 78
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626975 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06-10-2022 seeking the following information:Page 38 of 78
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.Page 39 of 78
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623630 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2 .
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.Page 40 of 78
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today"
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624857 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01-06-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today"
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625475 Information sought:
Page 41 of 78The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20-09-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN-AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625490 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20-09-2022 seeking the following information:Page 42 of 78
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN-AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623615 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.Page 43 of 78
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2 .
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today"
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624262 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01-06-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.Page 44 of 78
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today"
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/638692 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20-09-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN-AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.Page 45 of 78
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623613 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2 .
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.Page 46 of 78
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today"
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623626 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2 .
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today"
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624261 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01-06-2022 seeking the following information:Page 47 of 78
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today"
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624848 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01-06-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.Page 48 of 78
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today"
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625501 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20-09-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN-AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy.Page 49 of 78
He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/638715 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20-09-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN-AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.Page 50 of 78
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/639362 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06-10-2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.Page 51 of 78
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/639365 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06-10-2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.Page 52 of 78
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."Page 53 of 78
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623625 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2 .
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today"
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623658 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny Page 54 of 78 on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2 .
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today"
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624844 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01-06-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.Page 55 of 78
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04.
Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624861 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01-06-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.Page 56 of 78
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today"
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625669 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20-09-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN-AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.Page 57 of 78
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625671 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20-09-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN-AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.Page 58 of 78
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/633099 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one. Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given. It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2 .
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today"
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/633110 Page 59 of 78 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one. Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given. It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2 .
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today"
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/634438 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01-06-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.Page 60 of 78
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT office and not by the Assessing Officer itself for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/634561 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01-06-2022 seeking the following information:
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.Page 61 of 78
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one. Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given. It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2 .
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today"
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/634438 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01-06-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.Page 62 of 78
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT office and not by the Assessing Officer itself for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/634562 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01-06-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Page 63 of 78 Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today"
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/634563 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01-06-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.Page 64 of 78
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today"
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/633122 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2 .
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today"
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/633109 Page 65 of 78 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29-05-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2 .
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today"
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/634435 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01-06-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny Page 66 of 78 on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today"
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/634434 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01-06-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to Page 67 of 78 disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today"
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/638696 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20-09-2022 seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN-AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.Page 68 of 78
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd 3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT. Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Subhendu Sinha, CPIO-cum-ITO/HQ (Systems), attended the hearing through VC.
The Complainant did not participate in the hearing.
The Respondent submitted that the complainant has filed Complaints under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 in respect of non- receipt of any reply from the erstwhile CPIO. He further submitted that under the office of Pr. CCIT (CCA), as on date, there are more than 14 CCIT and 40 Pr. CIT under whom there are around 240 jurisdictional Officers who have also been assigned the charge of CPIO. The total number of PAN handled by these jurisdictional Officers is more than 1.71 Crores and therefore, the information can only be provided by the jurisdictional Officers under whom the PAN/jurisdiction lies. Further the Complainant in some RTI Applications has sought information in respect of Page 69 of 78 various people which are not possessed by any particular CPIO, hence, the same requires collection and collation of information. He added that information sought by the Complainant relates to A.Υ. 2003-04 to A.Y. 2005-06, which is around 17 to 19 years back from the year 2022 (date of RTI Applications); and during the year 2013, a restructuring took place in the Income Tax Department, whereby vast changes were made not only in the jurisdiction but also abolishing charges and creating new charges. Resultantly, largescale movement of records from one place to another and from one charge to another ensued. He further apprised the bench that there was another restructuring in the Income Tax Department in the year 2020, whereby faceless assessment units were created by abolishing many charges and/or merging of one charge into another charge. This too witnessed massive shifting of offices / records etc. Under these circumstances coupled with the fact that all records got shuffled, it is difficult to collect, compile and collate the information sought by the Complainant. Besides, no such data is maintained wherefrom the information sought could be collated and as such, it is not available in their records in compiled form. He added that each charge has the jurisdiction over thousands of cases and in order to collate the information sought, the work force and resources of this office would have been diverted completely to verify each and every individual case record, which are thousands in number. This diversion of time and resources would have hampered other statutory work including those which are quasi-judicial in nature and are bound by limitation of time. Thus, the information sought being voluminous in nature and available at several different locations, collating and compiling it would have disproportionately diverted the resources of the department, thereby attracting the provision of Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
However, on receipt of the hearing notice from the Commission efforts were made to locate the data to give an updated point-wise reply to the Complainant and since the information sought in the above RTI applications are scattered and are not held by their office in a compiled form, they are not able to provide the same to the Complainant and the same has been informed to the Complainant vide letter dated 17.05.2024 and further he tendered his unconditional apology for the delay caused in replying to the said RTI Applications and prayed the Commission that delay being unintentional be condoned in the interest of justice.Page 70 of 78
He further informed the bench that the Complainant had filed numerous RTI applications which creates undue pressure on CPIOs, and lot of time is being wasted for preparing the replies to repeated RTI applications with minor changes which has no public interest. He stated that no First Appeals were filed by the Complainant against any case.
A written submission has been received from Shri Subhendu Sinha, CPIO-cum- ITO/HQ (Systems), vide letter dated 10.05.2024, a copy of which has been sent to the Complainant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"4. Submissions of the Public Authority before the Hon'ble CIC
(a) Under the public authority of Pr. CCIT (CCA) as on date there is more than 14 CCIT and 40 Pr. CIT under whom there is various jurisdictional Officers which also more than 240. The total number of PAN handled by the jurisdictional Officer is more than 1.71 Cr. All the jurisdictional Officers are CPIO. Some rights/power has been given to the Jurisdictional Officer for the working of the department. The information can only be provided by the jurisdictional Officer under whom the PAN/jurisdiction lies. Further the appellant sought information in respect of various person which is not possessed by any particular CPIO hence the same was forwarded to all the jurisdictional CCIT for onward transmission as per provision of Sec. 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. Thus, the CPIO has complied as per provisions of RTI Act, 2005.
(b) Appellant has filed only 4 appeals before CPIO, O/o Pr. CCIT, Mumbai. Thus the in case of rest of 95 appeals this office has no information. Further, appellant has not filed any First Appeal before the First Appellate Authority as per records available with this Office. As per the provisions of RTI Act, 2004 appellant is required to file First appeal before filing 2nd appeal before the Hon'ble CIC.
(c) In this case, also no ground of appeal and related document has been received in any of the 2nd appeal filed by the assesse. Therefore, the merits of the case are discussed in the subsequent Para on general course of the appeal.
5. Merits of the case:
(a) The information sought is for the period Assessment year 2003-04 to today, further the information is voluminous in nature and hence, collating and compiling it would disproportionately divert the resources of the department. As such, the disclosure of the information is not mandatory as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(b) It is further submitted that the appellant is asking for blanket information i.e. not specific information. Under the RTI Act, "information" is defined under Section 2(f) as any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, ad vices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law Page 71 of 78 for the time being in force, Hence, the information sought cannot be provided as per the provision of section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(c) In respect of the impractical demands of the appellants, reliance is placed on the Apex Court decision in the case of CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011, Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011[Arising out of SLP [C] No.7526/2009.
"37. 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 fumishing 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 prioritizing information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
7. In conclusion, it is humbly submitted that the Public Authority has complied with all the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and hence it is requested that the appeal may be rejected, if deemed fit.
8. This may kindly be treated as reply of the Respondent, in all the appeal attached as Annexure A, as response to Notice of hearing for appeal in the above referred matter."
During the hearing, he submitted that he would have to open each of assessee's file in order to gather the information sought by the Complainant and numbers of assessees are humongous.
Decision The Commission, after adverting the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, notes that the Respondent has provided reply to the Complainant vide letter dated 17.05.2024. The Commission further observes that there is a substantial delay in providing replies to the Complainant on the above-mentioned RTI applications. In this regard, the Respondent, during the hearing, informed the bench that due to some technical reasons owing to merging and restructuring, the above- mentioned RTI applications were not attended within the mandated period. The Respondent apologized for the same and assured that such lapses would not recur in future.
Page 72 of 78The Commission further observes that the Complainant has not filed any First Appeal or Second Appeal in the above-mentioned cases as also in all cases adjudicated by this bench so far, and reasons for the same could not be ascertained as he was not present before the Commission despite notice. In a Complaint case, the Commission cannot give any relief for information under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only restricted role lies is to adjudicate whether the information has been malafidely denied by the CPIO or undue hindrance has been caused by the Respondent. It is noteworthy that the Complainant was not present before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the Respondents and further agitate the matter.
The Commission is not inclined to accept the prayer of the Complainant to impose penalty as well as for recommendation of disciplinary proceedings against the concerned CPIOs in the absence of any mala fide on part of the Respondent. The conduct of the Complainant shows his intention to pressurize the CPIO with the fear of penal action than actual delivery of information to him.
Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 1900 cases of the same Complainant against same and different Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In this regard, it is also worth noting that a total number of 100 complaints cases including the present set of cases listed for today's hearing and the same have been heard together simultaneously. The Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information in each of his RTI Applications with minor changes apparently to pressurize the Public Authority rather than actual interest in getting the information denied to him, if any. This intention of the Complainant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.
Here, the Commission would also like to recall its earlier observations made in bunch matter of the same Complainant in case File Nos. CIC/CCAPT/C/2021/630320 and Others decided on 21.02.2024; and CIC/CCAPT/C/2022/659908 and Others decided on 23.02.2024 wherein it was held as under -
Page 73 of 78"....the Commission finds it pertinent to mention that today 100 Complaints of the Complainant are being heard so that he does not have to appear frequently in the hearing on different dates and his time and resource are saved besides saving him from inconvenience. On one hand, the Commission is devoting very substantive time on his cases, but the Complainant by choosing to be absent in the hearing, has adopted a very casual, in fact, irresponsible act.
The scope of adjudication in the above-mentioned complaints filed under Section 18 of RTI Act, 2005 is limited to ascertaining whether the information has been denied with any mala fide intention or without any reasonable cause by the Respondent. The Commission observes that firstly, the replies given by the Respondent on above-mentioned RTI applications are within the stipulated period as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Secondly, the information available on record has already been provided to the Complainant.
The Complainant in his above-mentioned complaints has not explained the deficiency in the information provided. The Commission further observed that merely stating that the reply given is not satisfactory is not sufficient grounds to take action against the Respondent under Section 18 of the RTI Act.
Regarding imposition of penalty to the CPIO/PIO under section 20 of the RTI Act, the Commission took note of the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC & Anrs. WP(C) 3114/2007 vide order dated 03.12.2007 held that:
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two-year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the public 4 information officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of the information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act cannot be issued....."
Emphasis supplied Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:
Page 74 of 78"Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely. ......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it." In view of the above, the Commission finds that there is no mala fide on part of the respondent while replying to the RTI application. That being so, and in the absence of any merit in the complaint, the same is liable to be dismissed.
The Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 1200 cases of the same Complainant against same/another Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In this regard, it is also worth noting that the instant Complaints listed for today's hearing have been heard together along with other 74 matters of the Complainant simultaneously and the Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications for the same nature of information sought by merely expanding the time span of information sought in each of his RTI Applications apparently to pressurize the public authority rather than actual interest in getting the information denied to him, if any. This intention of the Complainant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizen. It appears that the complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.
It appears that the Complainant has been repeatedly seeking information on similar subject matters, thus using up the time and resources of the Public Authority disproportionately. Such repetitive litigation is counter- productive to the RTI regime, and this aspect has been discussed by the Apex Court in detail in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11), where J. Pasayat had held:
".........It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of Page 75 of 78 sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but expressing our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case... ... ... etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system..........."
Emphasis supplied It is also pertinent to note that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) Vs B Bharathi [WP No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014] has also given its opinion about such vexatious and repetitive litigation crippling the public authorities and held as follows:
"...The action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest....."
Emphasis supplied The Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] has also made similar observations:
"....... This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficial Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. ...................."
Emphasis supplied Page 76 of 78 In the other landmark judgement in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Apex Court held as follows:
"...37. ............................ 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..."
Emphasis supplied In view of this, the Commission finds it pivotal to highlight a recent decision of this bench, wherein aspect of "misuse of the right to information Act by the Appellant" has been explained in a manner. In this regard, ratio laid down in the matter of Nandkishor Gupta v. CPIO, Northwestern Railway, Head Quarter Office, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur - 302017. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
"The Appellant being a serving employee of the respondent Public Authority has as much right to information as is available to any other citizen of India. However, such a serving employee has an added obligation to frame the request in simplest and most easily understood form possible because he/she knows the circumstances under which his/her colleagues are working while also discharging the additional duty as CPIO and FAA. Therefore, the conduct of the Appellant in the present matter, to say the least, is questionable and is not appreciated.
Accordingly, the appellant is cautioned and admonished wherein he should keep in mind that the RTI Act should be used judiciously, sensibly and responsibly so that purpose of the RTI Act would not be defeated. The Commission leaves it to the concerned disciplinary authority for any consequent action in the matter. "
The Complainant has not been judicious in the use of RTI Act and has been using it as a tool to harass the Public Authority. The Complainant is therefore cautioned to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner."
Page 77 of 78Notwithstanding the above, the Commission admonishes the conduct of the Complainant as he is not abiding by the repetitive advice of the Commission and filing repetitive similar RTI Applications which is against the spirit of RTI Act and clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. In this regard, the Commission invites attention of the parties towards a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in a case titled Biplab Kumar Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. WPA 3116 of 2022 wherein it was held as under -
"...It appears from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner's ploy is to collect information under the Right to Information Act and thereafter use the said information to harass the private parties as well as the Municipality for unlawful gain. The conduct of the petitioner appears to be plainly harrassive and mala fide.
The averments and allegations made in the writ petition remains unsubstantiated. The writ petition is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed with costs.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-(twenty- five thousand) only to be paid by the petitioner in the office of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within September 30, 2022..."
In view of the above-said observations, the Commission finds no mala fide on part of the CPIOs. Further, the Commission, like on several occasions in the past, again advises the Complainant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act in future.
With these observations, the instant Complaints are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181827 Date Page 78 of 78 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)