Central Information Commission
Preeti vs Pr. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 5 March, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCITD/A/2024/124707
Preeti .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o the Pr. Commissioner of
Income Tax Delhi-7, R. No.
412(A), Central Revenue
Building, I P Estate,
New Delhi - 110002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14.01.2026
Date of Decision : 03.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.04.2024
CPIO replied on : 26.04.2024, 08.07.2024
First appeal filed on : 02.07.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 29.07.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.04.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"I PREETI D/o Sh. JAI PARKASH, Resident of Flat No.-****, *********, PLOT NO.-4, SECTOR-10, DWARKA, DELHI-110075 wish to seek information under the RTI Act, 2005. The information needed pertains to CIC/CCITD/A/2024/124707 Page 1 of 7 the JAO charges in your kind control i.e. O/o Pr.CIT-1, Pr.CIT-4 and Pr.CIT- 7, Delhi.
Kindly provide the reply for below mentioned query in large public interest as a lot of suppliers & service providers including myself are suffering due to non-payment of their bills:
1. How many bills (amounted in Rs.) pertaining to previous three financial years (i.e. 2021-22, 2022-23 & 2023-24) in your charge are pending.
I. Please give details of pending bills in the below mentioned format: S. No. Name of the supplier Bill No. Bill date Amount
2. Please provide name of the suppliers/service providers (with amount) to whom your office has made payment(s) of more than 5 Lakhs during last three FYs with their GST No., PAN and address duly verified from ITD/ITBA database in the below mentioned format: S. No. Name of supplier GST No. PAN Address Amount
3. If the goods mentioned in these bills mentioned at S.No.-1(i) have been made through GeM or Offline mode. If purchased through GeM, what was the method of purchase i.e. direct purchase or purchase through bidding process?
4. If the prior admin. approval has been taken from HoD/Addl. CIT(Admin.) by precuring authority (DDO) for the goods mentioned in these bills which are mentioned at 5.No.-1(i). If not, the reason for not taking the administrative approval as it is a procedural lapse which has caused financial lose.
5. Whether the payment was made by your charge(s) in Chronological Order during the last three FY(s). If no, please specify the reason behind this choose and pick method for payment of bills.
6. Whether the financial approval has been taken on file from their concerned PCIT(s)/HoD/Addl. CIT (Admin.) before processing the bills for payment to account section.
7. What was the limit for the financial sanction which were delegated to Addl. CIT (Admin.) & Drawing & Disbursing Officer by their concerned PCIT(s)/HoD during last three FYs.CIC/CCITD/A/2024/124707 Page 2 of 7
8. Whether any Addl. CIT(Admin.) & DDO misused their financial sanction by splitting the note sheets on multiple occasions to bypass their HoD/Competent Authority. If yes, please specify the reason.
9. Whether any of the supplier or service provider is directly or indirectly related to the precuring authority (DDO) or any staff posted in the O/o DDO. Has an Indemnity Bond been taken from the DDO/AO and their staffs by their concerned HoD/PCIT/CIT in this regard to avoid financial loss. Kindly provide a copy of same.
10. If the provisions of Delegation of Financial Power, 1978, GFRs, instructions issue by the DoE & other competent authorities i.e. CVC & DGS&D were followed while granting the Admin. & Financial Sanctions for procurement of goods and services (F. No. DIT Inf)/U-I/Misc-1/2020- 21/148 dt. 30th June,"
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 26.04.2024 transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, DDO, O/o-PCIT-07, Delhi under section 6 (3) of the RTI Act. The CPIO, DDO, O/o-PCIT-07, Delhi vide letter dated 09.05.2024 replied to the Appellant stating as under:
"In this regard, you are requested to disclose the purpose of information sought if there is any larger public interest involved therein. You are requested to provide the reply of the above query within Fifteen Days from the receipt of this letter and in absence of your reply for the above query by due date, it will be disposed of on merit of the facts as per RTI Act, 2005."
3. Further, the CPIO, DDO, PCIT-07, Delhi furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 08.07.2024 stating as under:
"1 & 2 Exempted under section 8 (d) which states as under:
(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
3 & 4. All the procurement are made in accordance with the rules and as per the requirement of the Charge to run office smoothly. In this process, CIC/CCITD/A/2024/124707 Page 3 of 7 GFR rules and the guidelines issued by the various competent authority has been duly followed.
5 & 6. The payments are made as per the direction of the higher authority and after taking necessary approvals.
7. Please refer to provisions of Delegation of Financial Power, 1978, GFRs which is available online.
The link is given below https://doe.gov.in/files/inline-
documents/GFR2017.pdf
8. No
9. No such information is available in this office
10. Refer to reply given in serial number 3& 4."
4. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.07.2024. The FAA order is not on record.
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Ms. Lata Singhal, Income Tax officer/CPIO, Shri Amit Chauhan, Incomer Tax Officer and Shri Manish Kumar, Office Superintendent, appeared in person.
6. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 29.07.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 14.01.2026 disclosing CIC/CCITD/A/2024/124707 Page 4 of 7 relevant facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
"In this regard, in continuation to our earlier reply, it is respectfully submitted that the appellant, Smt. Preeti is the wife of Sh. Manoj Kumar, who has worked as a Data Entry Operator (commonly referred to as D.E.O) or Computer Operator till mid-2023 as contractual worker in office of the Drawing & Disbursing Officer (CPIO), O/o Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-
07. Delhi. Sh. Manoj Kumar, simultaneously, started working as a vendor for supply of goods and services to the DDO-07 office and for this purpose, he created 05 dummy firms namely M/s Surendra & Sons (owner Shri Surender Kumar, father of Shri Manoj Kumar), M/s Digital World Sons (owner Smt. Preeti, w/o Shri Manoj Kumar), M/s J.P. Sales Corporation (owner Smt. Preeti, w/o Shri Manoj Kumar), M/s Vimo Stationery Mart (owner Ms. Nidhi, sister-in-law of Shri Manoj Kumar) & M/s Moksh (owner Shri Surender Kumar, father of Shri Manoj Kumar).
All these firms were registered in the name of relatives of Sh. Manoj Kumar. however, directly/indirectly controlled by him only. Further, it is pertinent to mention that M/s Digital World & M/s J.P. Sales Corporation are owned by the Appellant. Smt. Preeti (w/o Sh. Manoj Kumar). Sh. Manoj Kumar was well versed with the working of the office. He was assigned to assist in the work related to submission of bills of vendors. Later on, it came to the notice of the higher authorities that Shri Manoj Kumar was simultaneously running the supply business in the name of these firms and also engaged in processing of the bills raised by these firms. Resultantly. Shri Manoj Kumar, contractual employee was removed from office in June, 2023.
Thereafter, he started claiming that bills related to his firms are pending in this office and raised grievances through various channels such as complaint letters. CPGRAMS & RTIs. Sh. Manoj Kumar has received payment amounting to Rs.4.20 cr. in the favor of abovementioned firms during 2016 to 2023. After examination of his requests. payment for the pending bills, which were found to be genuine, have been already made. However, on examination, it was also found that he was claiming certain bills, which were not verified by any officer and there was no evidence with regard to actual delivery of goods/supplies against those bills to the DDO office. Such bills were just got received in the dak of the DDO office without verification or without mentioning any work order issued by the office against such payments. Therefore, it was not possible for the office to make any payments against such bills. The said vendors were asked to provide supporting details in justification of payments but the same has never been provided to the office.CIC/CCITD/A/2024/124707 Page 5 of 7
In the meantime, on the complaints made by Shri Manoj Kumar in the name of above firms, a vigilance inspection of the DDO-7 office was made by the O/o ADGIT (Vigilance). North Zone, New Delhi in October, 2024. After inspection, it was found that there were certain irregularities in the working of the then DDO Shri Ravi Kumar and accordingly, a chargesheet was issued to him, the proceedings of which are still going on even after retirement of Shri Ravi Kumar in February, 2025.
As regards, the appeal filed by Ms. Preeti against the action of the CPIO before the Hon'ble CIC, it is humbly submitted that the appeal was filed before the FAA on 02.07.2024 against non-providing of information in response to her RTI application. However, the CPIO, subsequently passed the order dated 08.07.2024 on her RTI application, thereby providing or denying the information. The CPIO order dated 08.07.2024 has never been appealed against by the applicant till date thereby indicating that the order is deemed acceptable to the applicant."
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, notes that core issue pertains to denial of information relating to pending bills and payments made to suppliers/service providers on the ground of exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(d) exempts disclosure of information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third-party, unless larger public interest warrants disclosure. However, the Respondent has categorically submitted during the hearing that the contracts pertaining to the said procurements have already been completed.
9. In such circumstances, the Commission observes that once the contractual process stands concluded, the element of commercial confidence or competitive harm substantially diminishes. Disclosure of details such as names of suppliers, bill amounts, payment particulars, and procurement mode in respect of completed contracts cannot ordinarily prejudice any ongoing commercial negotiations or competitive position. Rather, such disclosure would promote transparency and accountability in public expenditure.
10. The Commission further notes that the information sought relates to utilisation of public funds and payment of bills to vendors by a Public Authority. Transparency in public procurement and payment processes is a matter of significant public interest, particularly when the Appellant has CIC/CCITD/A/2024/124707 Page 6 of 7 alleged hardship due to non-payment of bills. Therefore, even otherwise, larger public interest justifies disclosure of the requested information. The denial of information under Section 8(1)(d) in a blanket manner, without examining whether any specific portion of the information would actually harm commercial interests, is not sustainable. The Respondent ought to have considered severability under Section 10 of the RTI Act, if any limited portion was genuinely exempt.
11. In view of the Respondent's categorical submission that the contract(s) have been completed, the Commission finds that the exemption claimed under Section 8(1)(d) is no longer applicable to the information sought at points 1 and 2 of the RTI application.
12. Accordingly, the Commission directs the Respondent to revisit the RTI application and provide the revised point-wise information particularly the information sought at points 1 and 2 of the RTI application, after redacting only such personal information, if any, which is strictly exempt under the provisions of the RTI Act. The information shall be furnished to the Appellant free of cost within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
13. The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Sd/-
(S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range - 25, Room No. 191, Central Revenue Building, I P Estate, New Delhi - 110002 CIC/CCITD/A/2024/124707 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)