Central Information Commission
Md. Arif Khalil vs Director General Of Income Tax (Inv). ... on 6 December, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DGITP/A/2023/639890
Md. Arif Khalil .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Principal
Director of Income Tax
(Investigation), 3rd Floor,
C.R. Building, Bir Chand Patel
Marg, Patna - 8000001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.11.2024
Date of Decision : 05.12.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.04.2023
CPIO replied on : 08.05.2023
First appeal filed on : 17.05.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 07.06.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 11.04.2023 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 8
"Application under RTI ACT, 2005 for Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) received in your office on 28.02.2023 in Speed Post No- EW300795729IN sought Investigation for an amount of around Rs.2.4 Crore into Source of Income and Tax Liabilities-Reg As Bihar is one of the most dangerous states for RTI users as it ranks first in India for the number of deaths of RTI users. Thus, I along with my family members should be protected under the Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014 as the persons involved are highly political influential and have strong bureaucratic contacts stated in the petition above. As the information sought in the petition as well as with this RTI is for public interest and the right to live with dignity guaranteed under the Constitution of India, the person involved above may further intimidate and fabricate me and my families with the collusion of the police with powerful vested interests in order we stop gathering information to defend our case at Hilsa Court, Bihar which is in the vicinity of their residence of the persons involved in above TEP. Thus, it is the responsibility of the Government to determine and shield against victimization under the Act.
Following are the information under RTI Act, 2005 with respect to the Tax Evasion Petition i.e. TEP filed by me in O/o. DGIT, Patna:
1. No of TEP received in F.Y. 2022-23?
2. What is the rank of my TEP w.r.t all the TEP received and TEP disposed?
3. Please provide me status of numbers of TEP yet to be disposed including my TEP in your office.
4. What is the UIN/ application Number of my TEP?
5. Is the information under my TEP considered for scrutiny assessments?
6. How many under TEP application till date in your office, Tax Evaders punished as an offence under Direct Tax Law?
7. What is the maximum punishment and fine for Tax Evaders under the Law?
8. How many persons involved under my TEP application attended and examined under TEP proceedings/ Scrutiny proceedings?
9. Are summons issued to the persons involved in Tax Evasion under my TEP?
10. What is the fate of my TEP application?
11.What are the actions department deemed fit for and action taken against the persons involved in my TEP application?Page 2 of 8
12. Is Enforcement Directorate and other Central agencies apprised of this TEP application? if no, why?
13.Is report submitted to CBDT w.r.t the TEP filed by me?
14.Is Canara Bank Account details questioned (attached with TEP)?
15.Was Canara Bank Account KYC completed before my RTI application to Canara Bank (attached with TEP)?
16. Are details of the Canara Bank Account w.r.t the legal as well as illegal transaction questioned?
17.List of other Banks account they hold.
18.List of assets they hold."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 08.05.2023 stating as under:
"The instant RTI application dated 11.04.2023 filed online under RTI Act, 2005 has been received in this office on 17.04.2023. The RTI application is based on a tax evasion petition filed by the applicant. Information provided is as under.
Matter/TEP has been categorized and under Investigation.
Information based on fishing and roving enquiry cannot be supplied under section 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005 and in the light of judgement of Honble High court of Delhi in the matter of Shyam Kumar Vs CIC and other, WP (C)5099 of 2016 dtd 30.05.2016 and decision of Honble CIC in the matter of Tansingh Gaur Vs All India Council for Technical in second appeal no. CIC/AICTE/A/2017/605558-BJ dtd. 09.11.2018.
Status of going on Investigation cannot be revealed under section 8(1)(J) of RTI Act 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.05.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 07.06.2023 disposed of the first appeal stating as under:
"The Present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the Order dt. 08.05.2023 of the CPIO, O/o the Pr. DIT (Inv.), Patna. Thereafter, the Appellant vide Letter dt. 23.05.2023 was provided an opportunity of being heard on 06.06.2023. This opportunity of hearing was sent by Speed Post. Neither appellant nor anyone appeared on behalf of the appellant on the date of hearing.
(2) From perusal of the Records and submission of the Appellant submitted vide First appeal letter and records of the CPIO, it is found that Page 3 of 8 the Appellant had filed his RTI Application by which, he had sought information on the action taken on Tax Evasion Petition filed by him. The CPIO, O/o the Pr. DIT (Inv.), Patna supplied the following Information to the Appellant on 08.05.2023.
"The instant RTI application dated 11.04.2023 filed online under RTI Act, 2005 has been received in this office on 17.04.2023. The RTI application is based on a tax evasion petition filed by the applicant. Information provided is as under: -
Matter/TEP has been categorized and under Investigation.
Information based on fishing and roving enquiry cannot be supplied under section 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005 and in the light of judgment of Hon'ble High court of Delhi in the matter of Shyam Kumar Vs CIC and other WP (C)5099 of 2016 dt. 30.05.2016 and decision of Hon'ble CIC in the matter of Tansingh Gaur Vs All India Council for Technical in second appeal no. CIC/AICTE/A/2017/605558-BJ dtd. 09.11.2018.
Status of going on Investigation cannot be revealed under section 8(1)(J) of RTI Act 2005".
(3) From perusal of the Records, it is found that the TEP in question was categorized and a Unique Identification number has been assigned to the TEP as per the standard operating procedure for handling of tax evasion petition of the Income Tax Department. CBDT SOP F. No. 290/21/2013- Dir(Inv-IV)2132 dt. 03.02.2021 and F. No. 291/21/2013-Dir(Inv-IV)1193 dt. 23.09.2016.
4. Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act exempts disclosure of "information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
Contention of Department is well supported by following decisions:
4.1 (a) When investigations are in progress, documents/details cannot be disclosed. In the case of Dr. B.L. Malhotra Vs. The national Small Industries Corporation Ltd., it has been stated as under:
The information sought contains the details of the individuals as well as business organizations, which are involved in the alleged corruption. The investigation process is in progress and is also contemplated against Page 4 of 8 some other officials and business concerns. In view of this, the exemption claimed u/s 8(1)(h) from disclosure of information is justified. (No. 783/IC(A)2007 dated 06.06.2007)
(b) In the case of Ravinder Kumar Vs. B.S. Bassi, the commission consistently taken the view that matters under investigation or those taken up in prosecution should not be disclosed till all proceedings in such cases are over. We uphold therefore the position taken by the AA and the CPIO that in the present case disclosure is barred by section 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(g) (No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00004, dated 30.06.2006) 4.2 Data / details held by Income-tax Dept in fiduciary capacity The disclosure of information is also exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act as the income-tax department is holding the information of the assesses in fiduciary capacity. The applicant has failed to disclose the public interest which is a mandatory requirement under Section 11 of the Act for disclosure of confidential and personal third-party information.
Further, the disclosure of the information sought for would be violative of the right to privacy, which has been read into Article 21 of the Constitution off India. Reference is made to paragraph 110 to 112 of the decision of this Hon'ble Supreme court in Secretary General, Supreme Court of India V. Subhash Chandra Agarwal & Anr. 166 (2010) DLT 305.
Decision Therefore, duly considering of above-mentioned facts, and most respectfully following decisions of Hon'ble Courts (Supra), appeal of applicant filed against the order dt. 08.05.2023 of CPIO, O/o Pr. DIT (Inv) Patna is hereby dismissed as I do not find any plausible reason for intervention in CPIO's order passed on 08.05.2023."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference. Respondent: Shri Sanjeet Kumar, ITO, appeared through video conference.Page 5 of 8
The appellant inter alia submitted that he has filed a Tax Evasion Petition through Speed Post- EW300795729IN received in the office of DGIT, Patna on 28.02.2023. He stated that the application was filed under Whistleblower Act and information sought was in the larger public interest. Besides, the appellant stated that there is likelihood of injustice to life & liberty of his and his family members if the information is not received on time.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 11.10.2024 stating complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place it on record. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
"The FAA vide his order dated 07.06.2023 disposed of the appeal considering his submission and duly informing the applicant that "Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act exempts disclosure of "information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Contention of Department is well supported by following decisions:
(a) When investigations are in progress, documents/details can not be disclosed.
In the case of Dr. B.L. Malhotra Vs. The national Small Industries Corporation Ltd., it has been stated as under:
The information sought contains the details of the individuals as well as business organizations, which are involved in the alleged corruption. The investigation process in progress and is also contemplated against some other officials and business concerns. In view of this, the exemption claimed u/s 8(1)(h) from disclosure of information is justified.
(No. 783/IC(A)2007 dated 06.06.2007)
(b) In the case of Ravinder Kumar Vs. B.S. Bassi, the commission consistently taken the view that matters under investigation or those taken up in prosecution should not be disclosed till all proceedings in such cases are over. We uphold therefore the position taken by the AA and the CPIO that in the present case disclosure is barred by section 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(g) (No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00004, dated 30.06.2006) Page 6 of 8 Therefore, duly considering of above-mentioned facts, and most respectfully following decisions of Hon'ble Courts (Supra), appeal of applicant filed against the order dt. 03.02.2023 of CPIO, O/o Pr. DIT (Inv) Patna is hereby dismissed as I do not find any plausible reason for intervention in CPIO's order passed on 03.02.2023.
A copy of order of FAA is enclosed as Annexure-B
6. It is further stated that the Intelligence and security organization established by the Central government is exempted under schedule 2 (section-24) of RTI Act, 2005 for providing such information. The main duty of office of the Pr. Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Patna is investigation of tax evasion as per information available with the department or provided by any person and to conduct search & seizure operation.
That your Honour may kindly appreciate that the CPIO, O/o Pr. Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Patna has duly discharged his responsibilities by informing the applicant in respect of the RTI application."
The respondent informed that the appellant TEP was registered and categorised as B and the matter was under investigation. The main duty of office of the Pr. Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Patna is investigation of tax evasion as per information available with the department or provided by any person and to conduct search & seizure operation. Since, the matter was under investigation, the respondent expressed their inability to provide the information under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that the appellant sought information regarding Tax Evasion Petition filed by him and related information. The respondent replied that information sought was voluminous and thus expressed their inability to provide the information in terms of section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. The respondent submitted that the appellant has filed TEP which was still under investigation, thus, the respondent has claimed Page 7 of 8 exemption under section 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act. However, the respondent has provided the category of the TEP filed by the appellant.
In view of the above, the Commission finds that appropriate responses have been given by the respondents and interference from the Commission is not required in this matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), 3rd Floor, C.R. Building, Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna - 8000001 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)