Central Information Commission
Radha Raman Tripathy vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 6 May, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos: CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623857; CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625067 and
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626540
RADHA RAMAN TRIPATHY ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Deputy commissioner of Income
Tax, Circle-1, GT Road,
Dargamitta, Nellore - 524003 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22.04.2026
Date of Decision : 06.05.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Complaints are clubbed together as the Complainant as
well as the Respondent are same and the subject-matter is similar in nature
and hence are being disposed of through a common order.
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623857
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 29.05.2022
CPIO replied on : 22.04.2026
First appeal filed on : Not on record
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623857
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625067
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626540 Page 1 of 11
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.05.2023
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 (online) 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, Hyderabad.
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."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623857 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625067 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626540 Page 2 of 11 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625067 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 01.06.2022 CPIO replied on : 22.04.2026 First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23.05.2023 Information sought:
3. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 (online) 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 reftected 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.
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623857 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625067 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626540 Page 3 of 11 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, Hyderabad."
4. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint."
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626540 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 20.09.2022 CPIO replied on : 22.04.2026 First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 30.05.2023 Information sought:
5. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 (online) 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 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623857 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625067 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626540 Page 4 of 11 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."
6. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent despite notice.
Respondent: Shri S.S. Ramakrishna, CPIO & Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Nellore, appeared through video conference.
7. Proof of having served copies of Complaints on Respondent while filing the same in CIC are available on record or not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service. Thus, Regulation No. 10 of the Central CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623857 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625067 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626540 Page 5 of 11 Information Commission Management Regulations 2007 has not been complied with by the Appellant.
8. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 22.04.2026 in all cases disclosing relevant facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record. The relevant paras of the written submission in file numbers wise are reproduced as under:
In file No. CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623857 following submissions are made:
"...On verification of RTI portal and appeal filed by the appellant, it is noticed that the then CPIO, Sri M. Bharadwaj, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Nellore did not reply to the above RTI application. The concerned CPIO retired on superannuation.
3. In obedience to the orders of the Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner, the RTI applicant was replied today i.e. 22-04-2026. A copy of the communication sent to the Appellant/Complainant along with relevant correspondence is attached herewith for kind perusal of Hon'ble Commission."
The contents of the reply dated 22.04.2026 given to the Complainant is reproduced as under:
"No such cases in the circle. The information sought may be treated as "NIL"
In file No. CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625067 following submissions are made:
"2. On verification of RTI portal and appeal filed by the appellant, it is noticed that the then CPIO, Sri M. Bharadwaj, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Nellore did not reply to the above RTI application. The concerned CPIO retired on superannuation.
3. In obedience to the orders of the Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner, the RTI applicant was replied today i.e. 22-04-2026. A copy of the communication sent to the Appellant/Complainant along with relevant correspondence is attached herewith for kind perusal of Hon'ble Commission."
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623857 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625067 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626540 Page 6 of 11 The contents of the reply dated 22.04.2026 given to the Complainant is reproduced as under:
"No such cases in the circle. The information sought may be treated as "NIL"
In file No. CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626540 following submissions are made:
"2. On verification of RTI portal and appeal filed by the appellant, it is noticed that the then CPIO, Ms. Devireddy Swapna, Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Nellore Range, Nellore could not reply to the above RTI application as there was no regular officer for the Nellore Range. However, Ms. Devireddy Swapna was holding the regular charge as Addl. CIT, Range-1, Tirupati and additional charge of this Range, i.e., Nellore Range, Nellore.
3. In obedience to the orders of the Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner, the RTI applicant was replied today i.e., 22-04-2026. A copy of the communication sent to the Appellant/Complainant along with relevant correspondence is attached herewith for kind perusal of Hon'ble Commission."
The contents of the reply dated 22.04.2026 given to the Complainant is reproduced as under:
"No such cases in the circle. The information sought may be treated as "NIL"
Decision
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, notes that the present matters have been filed as Complaints under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005. The scope of adjudication under Section 18 is limited to examining whether there has been any mala fide denial of information, unreasonable delay, or any other violation attracting penal consequences under the RTI Act. It is well settled that proceedings under Section 18 of the RTI Act do not confer any right upon the Complainant to seek directions for disclosure of information, unless such violation is clearly established. In this regard, the Commission relies on one judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. Vs. State of Manipur & Anr." bearing CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011 decided on 12.12.2011 has held as under:-
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623857 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625067 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626540 Page 7 of 11 "Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19.
This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a time honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch. D. 426] that where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden."
10. The above ratio is applicable to this case as well. It is noted that the Respondent has replied to the above RTI applications as per the records available with them. The Respondent has also filed written submissions where the complete factual position of the above cases was informed as per the records available with them. Moreover, the Complainant did not appear before the Commission despite service of notice to contest his cases. The Commission also notes that the Complainant did not avail the statutory remedy of filing a First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act against the replies furnished by the CPIO, nor has he demonstrated any deliberate denial of information or mala fide intent on the part of the Respondent so as to attract the provisions of Section 18 of the RTI Act.
11. The Commission observes that the scope of adjudication under the RTI Act is limited to examining whether the information sought is held by the Public Authority and whether the same has been provided or is exempt from disclosure under the provisions of the Act. The Commission is not empowered CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623857 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625067 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626540 Page 8 of 11 to adjudicate disputes relating to correctness of records, redressal of grievances, or to direct creation, interpretation or analysis of information.
12. The Commission further observes that the Respondent has furnished the information as available on record and permissible under the RTI Act. It may not be out of place to mention that mere expectation of additional information beyond the records held by the Public Authority does not constitute a valid ground for intervention by the Commission.
13. It is also noted that the RTI Act does not cast an obligation upon the Public Authority to collate information from various sources, draw inferences, or provide clarifications, opinions or explanations to the applicant. The role of the Commission is confined to ensuring access to existing records, subject to statutory exemptions.
14. It is also noted that the Complainant has not placed on record any cogent evidence to establish that the Respondent acted with mala fide intent, deliberately withheld information, or caused obstruction in furnishing information. Mere dissatisfaction with the replies provided or the outcome of administrative or vigilance processes does not constitute a violation of the RTI Act.
15. It is relevant to quote the observations made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
"61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bona fidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of mala fides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623857 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625067 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626540 Page 9 of 11 incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
16. The Commission finds no mala fide on part of the CPIO. Since records of the case do not indicate any such deliberate denial or concealment of information on the part of the CPIO, the Commission concluded that there was no cause of action which would necessitate action under the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 in the instant complaint.
17. Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 2500 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 50 complaint cases including the present set of cases listed for today's hearing. The Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information in each of his RTI Applications 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. The Commission, like on several occasions in the past, again advises the Complainant to make judicious and sensible use of his rights under the Right to Information Act in future.
18. The Respondent during the hearing submitted that the Complainant has not served a copy of the instant complaints upon the Respondent. The Commission would like to remind the Complainant of the fact that serving a copy of documents (including Complaint, Second Appeal and Written submissions) to the opposite party is crucial for fairness, transparency, and due process in legal proceedings and also in the interest of expeditious response from the concerned Public Authority. It further reinforces the bona fide interest of the Appellant/Complainant in obtaining the information at the earliest possible. The requirement of advanced service is in accordance with the audi alteram partem requirement. It further ensures that the opposite party is aware of the facts of filing a case in CIC, arguments of the Complainant CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623857 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625067 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626540 Page 10 of 11 and reason for discontentment. It has been the experience that where the Complainant had served advance copy of the Second Appeal/Complaint on the opposite party, the Respondent Public Authority has tried proactively to resolve the case by either providing clarity on the subject or by providing revised and updated reply/information to the Complainant before the matter reaches for the hearing. This ultimately results in faster delivery of information, thus leading to a more efficient and effective Appeal/Complaint disposal. It also reduces the time, energy and efforts of the Commission and Respondent Public Authority in early disposal. It is in his own interest for the Complainant to serve an advance copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on the Respondents.
19. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Commission finds no infirmity in the action of the Respondent Authority. No case is made out for intervention of the Commission under the RTI Act, 2005.
The Complaints are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कु मार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूच ना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) Sd/-
(S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623857 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625067 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626540 Page 11 of 11 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)