Central Information Commission
D Dhaya Devadas vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 16 September, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: (1) CIC/CCACH/A/2024/112432
(2) CIC/CCACH/A/2024/633587
D Dhaya Devadas .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Income Tax Officer (HQ). O/o
the Pr. Commissioner of Income
Tax - I, Aayakar Bhawan, 121,
M.G. Road, Chennai - 600034 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08.09.2025
Date of Decision : 16.09.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Second Appeal are clubbed together as the parties are
common, and subject-matter is similar in nature and hence, are disposed of
through a common order.
(1) CIC/CCACH/A/2024/112432
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.11.2023
CPIO replied on : 11.12.2023
First appeal filed on : 13.01.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
Compliance of FAA order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 17.04.2024
Page 1 of 23
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.11.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Sub: 1. Director [OT & WT] CBDT has informed during the hearing held on 07.06.2023 based on our request to condone the delay in filing of our Income Tax Return on 08.01.2021 under Sec.119/[2][b] of Income Tax Act and the said Director has informed us that the Income Tax Department has given some negative remarks against us.
2. The Deputy Secretary (ITCC), Central Board of Director Taxes has passed Order under Sec. 119(2)(b) of IT Act, 1961 vide their Order No. F.No. 312/113/2020-OT dated 8.11.2023 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. Accordingly, the Board in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (b) of sub-section(2) of Section 119 of Income Tax Act declines to condone the delay in filing the revised ROI for AY 2013-14. The petition is rejected.
3. The Deputy Secretary (ITCC), Central Board of Director Taxes has passed Order under Sec. 119(2)(b) of IT Act, 1961 vide their Order No. F.No. 312/113/2020-OT dated 8.11.2023 for the Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2018-19. Accordingly, the Board in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (b) of sub-section(2) of Section 119 of Income Tax Act declines to condone the delay in filing the revised ROI for AYs 2014-15 to 2018-19. The petition is rejected.
4. Request you to kindly furnish a copy of your remarks given letter in which you have given your remarks to the said Director, based on our request to them to condone the delay under Sec. 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 - Reg.
Ref: 1. Our PAN No. AAACI1505K.
2. Our RTI application No. RTI/DI-88/109/2023-24 dated 29.06.2023 to Central the Public Information Officer, Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1
3. The CPIO, 0/0. the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 DIN & Letter No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1054176598(1) dated 06.07.2023.
4. The Income Tax Officer (HQ) (Coord) & CPIO, O/o the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax letter No. CHE/Coord/101(27)/RTI(188)/2023- 24 dated 07.08.2023.
5. The Deputy Secretary (ITCC), Central Board of Director Taxes has passed Order under Sec. 119(2)(b) of IT Act, 1961- vide their Order No. F.No. 312/113/2020-OT dated 8.11.2023 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and the Assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19.
Page 2 of 231. With reference to the above, we have received the above said 2 Orders dated 08.11.2023 mentioned under Ref. Nos. 4 & 5 from the Deputy Secretary (ITCC Central Board of Direct Taxes rejecting our petition dated 10.07.2020 for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in filing the Returns of Income for the Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2018-19, seeking to claim carry forward of losses and refunds from A.Ys 2013-14 to 2018-19.
2. In this connection, we have already filed our RTI application No. RTI/DI- 88/109/2023-24 dated 29.06.2023 to the Central Public Information Officer, Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 and we extract below the relevant portion of RTI questions for your kind perusal.
i. "Copy of your letter submitted to the Director (OT & WT) Central Board of Direct Taxes for the remarks called based on our request to condone the delay in filing the Income Tax returns based on our request made on 10.07.2022 and also earlier given letter by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax given to the Chairman, 'Central Board of Direct Taxes after having an decisions with earlier submitted remarks based in the our belatedly uploaded on 08.01.2021 under Sec.119[2][b] of Income Tax Act. to them with relevant justifications for the delay including the unlawful stoppage of our lawful mining and manufacturing activities based on the unlawfully created fake inspection report by the Govt. of Tamil Nadu.
ii. Copies of the note filed for the inordinate delay from 8.1.2021 in furnishing the remarks even after our detailed letter submitted to you vide our letter dated 10.07.2020."
3. We submit that the CPIO & Income Tax Officer (HQ), O/o the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1 has given his letter to the Income Tax Officer (HQ) (Coord), O/o Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. Tamil Nadu & Puducherry vide DIN & letter No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/1054176598(1) dated 06.07.2023 and we extract below the relevant portion of reply for your kind perusal.
"I am forwarding the RTI application of the applicant, M/s. Indian Garnet Sand Co. (P) Ltd., dated 29.06.2023 along with Postal Order since the reference made in Para 6 is likely to be available in your office."
4. We submit that the Central Public Information Officer & Income Tax Officer (HQ)(Coord), O/o the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax has Page 3 of 23 passed proceedings of the Income Tax Officer (HQ) (Coordination), Chennai vide their Proc. No. CHE/101(27)/RTI(188)/2023-24 dated 07.08.2023 and we extract below the relevant portion for your kind perusal.
S.No. Our RTI Central Public Information officer & Income Tax
Question Officer (HQ)(coord) reply
1 Copy of your 3(1) The decision on the validity of the belatedly
letter filed return on 8.1.2021 has not yet been
submitted to communicated to this office from the Director
the Director (OT & WT). CBDT. As mentioned by the
(OT & WT) applicant, the report from this office has already
Central Board been submitted to the CBDT on 6.2.2023. The of Direct Taxes remarks mention in this office report are only for the factual in nature for consideration by the CBDT remarks called to arrive at a final decision.
based on our request to 3(ii) It is pertinent to mention that the DOPT condone the vide OM dated 1.6.2009 endorsed the decision delay in filing of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Goa in the Income Writ Petition No. 419/2007 dated 3.4.2008 in Tax returns the case of Dr. Celsa Pinto Vs Goa State based on our information Commission and observed that "The request made Public Information Authority cannot expect to on 10.07.2022 communicate to the citizen the reason why a and also certain thing was done or not done in the sense earlier given of justification because the citizen marks a letter by the requisition about information. Justification are Principal Chief mater within the domain of adjudicating Commissioner authorities and cannot properly be classified of Income Tax information". as given to the 3(iii) Further in the decision of the Central Chairman, Information Commission (CIC) in the case of K.S. Central Board Prasad Vs SEBI CIC/AT/A/2007/007/00234, it is of Direct Taxes held that:
after having ".....as soon as an investigation or an enquiry by an decisions a subordinate Enquiry Officer in Civil and with earlier Administrative matters comes to an end and the submitted Investigation report is submitted to a higher remarks based authority, it cannot be said to be the end of in the, our investigation....which can be truly said to be belatedly concluded only with the decision by the uploaded on competent authority."
Page 4 of 23 08.01.2021 under 3(iv) The CIC in Appeal No. Sec.119[2][b] CIC/DGVCE/A/2017/170744-B] in the case of of Income Tax Mr. Gora Chand Chatterjee has observed that: Act. to them "there is one other factor that also needs some with relevant reflection. Disclosure of an investigation/enquiry justifications report(as demanded in this case by the for the delay appellant) even before its acceptance/rejection including the by a given competent authority will expose that unlawful authority to competing pressures which may stoppage of hamper cool reflection on the report and our lawful compromise objectivity of decision making." mining and
manufacturing 3(v) From the above it is evident that though the activities factual report received by this office through based on the proper channel from the field officers was unlawfully collated and submitted to the Board, the final created fake decision making on the issue lies within the inspection domain of the CBDT, which is the Competent report by the Authority. Thus, information sought for by the Govt. of Tamil applicant cannot be provided till the decision-
Nadu. making process is completed by the CBDT.
Furthermore, the appellant could not establish
the larger public interest in disclosure of
information.
2 Copies of the There is No such note maintained by this office
note filed for and therefore the information sought for is not the inordinate available.
delay from
8.1.2021 in
furnishing the
remarks even
after our
detailed letter
submitted to
you, vide our
letter dated
10.07.2022.
5.1. We submit that the CPIO & Tax Officer (HQ) (Coord) has referred the CIC Order in Appeal No. CIC/DGVCE/A/2017/170744-BJ in the case of Mr. Gora Chand Chatterjee stating that the Disclosure of an Page 5 of 23 investigation/enquiry report(as demanded in this case by the appellant) even before its acceptance/rejection by a given competent authority will expose that authority to competing pressures which may hamper cool reflection on the report and compromise objectivity of decision making.
5.2. We submit that the we have requested to furnish the copy of your letter submitted to the Director (OT & WT) Central Board of Direct Taxes for the remarks called by them, based on our request to condone the delay in filing of Income Tax Returns, based on our request made on 10.07.2022, that too, after the competent authority passed final order, that too, rejecting our petition to condone the delay in filing of Income Tax Returns and carry forward the losses for the A.Ys 2013-14 to 2018-
19. 5.3. We submit that the Central Public Information Officer & Income Tax Officer (HQ)(Coord) disposed our RTI application and if we desires to file an appeal against this order to the Appellate Authority & Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (H.Qrs) (Coordination)/FAA within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order.
5.4. We submit that the we are not able to file our appeal to the Appellate Authority & Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (H.Qrs) (Coordination)/FAA within 30 days due to some unavoidable reasons.
6. We submit that our Federation of Indian Placer Mineral Industries and its members have only exposed the unlawful looting of 7 Nos. Atomic Mineral of Garnet, Ilmenite, Rutile, Zircon, Sillimanite, Leucoxene & Monazite to the tune of Rs. 2 Lakhs Crores worth of said minerals from 1990 onwards, including unlawful storage of 1.5 Crores MT of Run of Mines, processed and semi processed minerals with rich Monazite by M/s. V.V. Minerals and their Associates without any valid mining leases and manufacturing factories in total violation of the Law in connivance with the concerned Central and State Government Department Officials.
7. We submit that we have already submitted to you as to how the Government of Tamil Nadu have unlawfully closed our lawful mining and manufacturing activities by creating fake inspection report dated 14.11.2011 at the instigation of M/s. V.V. Minerals and their Associates to wreck vengeance for exposing the said looting and the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench has exposed the entire violations committed, by the Government Official belonging to various Departments and also confirmed that we have not committed any Page 6 of 23 violations has stated in the said fake inspection report vide their orders passed on 18.12.2015 and 29.01.2016 in WAP. [MD] Nos. 2111 to 2115/2013 and 7753 & 7754/2013 and in addition they have also confirmed that we have not committed any violations has alleged by the Government.
8. Since, the request of our delay condonation were declined vide their above said 2 orders under Ref. Nos. 4 & 5, there will not be any impediment to furnish the copies of the letter given to the Director (OT & WT), Central Board of Direct Taxes or any other Officer of the CBDT and also the relevant note file showing the reason for inordinate delay in submission of your reply/remarks to the CBDT..
9. We therefore request again request you to kindly furnish the following 2Nos. required information under RTI Act, 2005 for taking further appropriate action in the relevant forum as per law.
i. Copy of your letter submitted to the Director (OT & WT) Central Board of Direct Taxes for the remarks called based on our request to condone the delay in filing the Income Tax returns based on our request made on 10.07.2022 and also earlier given letter by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax given to the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes after having an decisions with earlier submitted remarks based in the our belatedly uploaded on 08.01.2021 under Sec. 119[2][b] of Income Tax Act. to them with relevant justifications for the delay including the unlawful stoppage of our lawful mining and manufacturing activities based on the unlawfully created fake inspection report by the Govt. of Tamil Nadu.
ii. Copies of the note filed for the inordinate delay from 8.4.2021 in furnishing the remarks even after our detailed letter submitted to you vide our letter dated 10.07.2028."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 11.12.2023 stating as under:
"Application filed by Dr. D. Dhaya Devadoss, Chairman, M/s Indian Garnet Sand Co. (P) Ltd. Plot No. 1/580, Door No.12/627, Veerabathram Nagar, Mambakkam Main Road, Medavakkam, Chennai 600 100 under the RTI Act, 2005 requesting to furnish the copy of letter sent to the Director [OT & WT], Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) for and copies of the note filed with regard to delay in furnishing the remarks to CBDT.Page 7 of 23
2. The information has been sought by the applicant in the capacity of Chairman of M/s. Indian Garnet Sand Co. (P) Ltd.
2.1 It is seen that only citizen of India can submit RTI application. In the present case, the applicant representing M/s Indian Gamet Sand Co. (P) Ltd., which is not a natural person and therefore not a citizen of India. Therefore the application is not valid under the RTI Act.
3. Further, I have perused the decision of CIC order No. 2007/00168 dated 20.04.2007 in the case of P. Rajan, Cochin v. CIT, Kottayam, Kerala in the information pertaining to Malayala Manorama Coy. As per the order of Hon'ble CIC it has been held that it is not open to the applicant to repeatedly file petitions for similar information with nothing more than cosmetic to make it look distinct and separate. These amounts to colourable exercise of the right conferred on the citizens and must be firmly discouraged.
4. It is noticed that the information sought for is related to cosmetic modified petition, which is already filed, and decided by the Central Public Information Officer & Income Tax Officer (HQ)(Coord), O/o Pr.CCIT. Chennai. Hence, the appellant's request is rejected u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.01.2024. The FAA's order is not on record.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(2) CIC/CCACH/A/2024/633587 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.01.2024
CPIO replied on : 04.03.2024
First appeal filed on : 02.05.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 04.06.2024
Compliance of FAA order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.08.2024
Information sought:
Page 8 of 23
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.01.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Ref: 1. Our PAN No. AAACI1505K.
2. Our appeal No. IGSC/ACCTS/CBDT/148/2020-21 dated 10.07.2020 addressed to, the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi.
3. The Deputy Secretary (OT & WT), Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes letter No. F. No. 312/114/2020-OT dated 24.08.2020 addressed to the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, TN & Puducherry with a copy to us.
4. The Deputy Secretary (OT & WT) letter No. F. No. 312/114/2020-OT dated 24.08.2020 addressed to us.
5. The Director (OT & WT) letter No. F.No. 312/114/2020-OT dated 04.11.2020.
6. The Director(OT & WT) letter No. F.No. 312/114/2020-OT dated 02.12.2020.
1. With reference to the above, we submit that we have submitted our factual appeal to the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi under Ref. No.2 cited and the Deputy Secretary (OT&WT), CBDT has requested the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to submit a factual report in the prescribed format along with their comments, of the CCIT/CIT concerned on the merits of the application on the Board by 25.09.2020 and we extract below the relevant portion for your kind perusal.
"Kindly find enclosed herewith copies of petition dated 10.07.2020 received from M/s. Indian Garnet Sand Co. (P) Ltd., (PAN: AAACI1505K) on the above subject."
2. In this it is requested that a factual report in the prescribed format (copy enclosed) may kindly be submitted along with your comments and comments of the CCIT/PR. CIT/CIT concerned on the merits of the application to the Board by 25.09.2020 positively."
2. We submit that the Deputy Secretary (OT&WT), Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi has given letter No. F. No. 312/114/2020-OT dated 24.08.2020 addressed to us and we extract below the relevant portion for your kind perusal.
"Please refer to your above mentioned application filed with CBDT. In this regard, I am directed to request you to please furnish details of amounts Page 9 of 23 of Incomes/Losses/Refund to be claimed in Assessment Years 2013-14 till date for which you wish to submit returns of Income. You are also requested to please furnish "Computations of Income for these assessment years at the earliest so as to enable the Board to process the matter. You are also requested to furnish complete copies of enclosures to your above application dated 10.07.2020,"
3.1. We submit that we and our Associate M/s. Indian Garnet Sand Co[P]] Ltd are the only the law abiding lessees having 6Nos. Garnet mining leases in the Inland Fresh Water Stream Beds and Tanks and I No. BSM Mining Lease out of the 80 Nos. placer mineral mining leases in India, in which 67Nos. BSM mining leases that were granted in Tamil Nadu& Andhra and the remaining 13 Nos. River Garnet mining leases, etc. that were granted in the above Stream Beds and Tanks, Tamil Nadu as on 12.01.2015 on the date of issue of amendment to MM[D&R] Act.
3.2. We submit that 73 Nos, mining leases were unlawfully granted in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh in total violation of law out of the 80 Nos. mining leases, that too, without the complying the statutorily prescribed preconditions of Environment Clearances issued by Ministry of Environment and Forest, the Consent to Establish and Operate issued by the State Pollution Control Board, etc, as per the law, the Supreme Court Orders under our Constitution.
4.1. In this connection, we submit that the concerned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Department, Corporate Circle, Chennai has also conducted detailed enquiry with us and we have explained the entire facts as to why our lawful mining and manufacturing activities were unlawfully stopped our lawfully operated mining and manufacturing activities from September/October, 2011 onwards by the Govt. of Tamil Nadu, by crating bogus Inspection Report dated 14.11.2011 stating unlawfully mined and sold 24.9 Lakhs MTs of Run of Mines and they have also seized 16.75 Lakhs MTs of Garnet, at the instigation of M/s. V.V. Minerals and their Associates to wreck vengeance for exposing looting of 7 Nos. of Atomic Minerals such as Garnet, Ilmenite, Rutile, Zircon, Sillimenite, Leucoxene and Monazite belonging to the government, without any valid mining leases and manufacturing factories, in connivance with the concerned officials from 1990 onwards by giving factual complaints from 1990 onwards and also filing PIL in W.P[MD] No. 5549/2007 seeking CBI Investigation covering the various violations that were committed in looting of said minerals.
Page 10 of 234.2. We submit that the Govt. of Tamil Nadu have also unlawfully cancelled our members 5 Nos. Garnet mining leases to an extent of 148.50.0 Hect. on 01.02.2013 and also sent show cause notice to them demanding to pay penalty of Rs. 150/- Crores on 10.4.2013, based on the said fabricated Inspection report dated 14.11.2011, at the instigation of M/s. V.V. Minerals and their Associates.
4.3. We submit that our members have filed 7 Nos. Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD) No. 2111/2013 to 2115/2013, 7753/2013 and 7754/2013 challenging the unlawful cancellation of our members 5Nos. Garnet mining leases and also unlawful sending of 2 Nos. Show Cause Notices, based on the said fabricated inspection report dated 14.11.2011.
4.4. The Hon'ble High Court has heard the said 7Nos. Writ Petitions and finally passed orders on 18.12.2015 highlighting the entire fraudulent acts that were committed by the various concerned Departments in creation of the bogus inspection report and cancellation of our members 5 Nos. Garnet mining leases and sent 2Nos. show cause notices demanding them to pay Rs. 150/- Crores as penalty and also finally passed order on 29.01.2016 confirming that the actual stocks available in our members 7 Nos. factories are only 2.5 Lakhs MTs instead of 16.75 Lakhs MTs, based on the Advocate Commissioner submitted report dated 20.01.2016, along with measurement of Garnet at their 7 Nos. factories to the High Court.
5. We submit that we have furnished the relevant High Court Orders to prove that we have not committed any violations, as alleged by the Government in their Inspection Report dated 14.11.2011.
6. We submit that the above Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 would have given factual reports to the Deputy Secretary (OT&WT), CBDT, as requested in the above said letter dated 24.08.2020 considering our factual statement given in the said letter, which may please be noted.
7.1. We submit that our Federation of Indian Placer Mineral Industries, in which the undersigned is the President have only exposed the looting of Rs.2/- Lakhs Crores worth of 7Nos. Atomic Minerals, including the unlawful storage 1.5 Crores of 7 Nos. Atomic Minerals with rich Monazite by M/s. V.V. Minerals and their Associates from 1990 onwards in spite of our Federation given repeated complaints and filing of 3PILs filed in W.P(MD) Nos. 5549/2007, 1233/2012 and W.P. No. 1592/2015 seeking Page 11 of 23 CBI and SIT enquiries covering the said looting in connivance with concerned officials from 1990 onwards.
7.2. We submit that our Federation has only made the 13 Nos. Central and State Government Department Respondents, including the Govt. of Tamil Nadu to file their sworn counters in the pending Suo-Moto PIL in W.P. No. 1592/2015 admitting the entire violations committed by M/s. V.V. Minerals and their Associates, as stated in our complaints from 1990 and also the 3 affidavits filed in our 3 PILs are true, based on 3,200 Nos. undeniable and undisputable information obtained from the concerned Central and State Government Department under RTI Act, 2005.
7.3. We submit that the Grace of the Almighty we could able to expose the entire violations that were committed by M/s. V.V. Minerals and their Associates, without any valid mining leases and manufacturing factories from 1990 onwards by giving factual complaints and affidavits in the said 3 Nos. PILs are true.
8. We now request you to kindly furnish the following information under RTI Act, 2005.
i. Copies of the factual reports that were submitted by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax in the prescribed format along with the comments of the CCIT/PR. CIT/CIT on merits of the application submitted by us to the Chairman, CBDT vide our letter dated 10.07.2020 to the Deputy Secretary (OT&WT), Central Board of Income Tax, as requested vide their letter No. F. No. 312/114/2020-OT dated 24.08.2020. ii. Copies of the correspondence that were made between the Director (OT & WT), Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax in respect of our above said application for condoning the delay in filing of Income Tax Returns."
6. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 04.03.2024 stating as under:
"1 & 2: The factual report called for by the Board in the subject case was submitted by the jurisdictional officer, and the same was forwarded to the Board. Subsequently, the Board passed order U/s.119(2)(b) vide F.No.312/113/2020-OT dated 08.11.2023 and F.No.312/113/2022-OT dated 08.11.2023. Copies of the same are enclosed for reference."
7. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.05.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 04.06.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Page 12 of 238. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri B John Solomon, Advocate present through video conference. Respondent: Not present.
9. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeals on Respondent while filing the same in CIC is not available on record.
10. The Commission informed the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that more than 90 cases (Second Appeals/Complaints) of the Appellant have already been heard and disposed of by the CIC in the past and today (08.09.2025) six numbers of Second Appeal are listed for hearing before this Bench. To this, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant replied that he has also filed more than 2500 petitions before the Court of Law flagging similar issues alleging corruption in granting approval for mining activities and cancellation of such license based on alleged fake inspection report. As regards instant RTI applications, complete information has not been given by the Respondent till date. Hence, this Second Appeal before the Commission.
11. The Respondent remained absent during hearing despite prior intimation.
12. However, in case File No. CIC/CCACH/A/2024/633587, a written submission dated Nil filed by Shri Lal Manish Nath Sahu, DEO, O/O. Principal Commissioner of ITO (HQ) (Coordination), Chennai on behalf of Nodal Officer (RTI Cell). The same has been taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:
The respondent, CPIO, ITOHÌ), O/o the Pr. Commissioner of Income tax-1, Chennai vide letter dated 21.08.2025 forwarded a copy of the hearing notice along with its enclosure, stating that the information sought by the appellant pertains to the O/o Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu & Puducherry. Facts of the Case: 1. The appellant filed an online RTI application on 04.01.2024 seeking following details: ") Copies of the factual reports that were submitted by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax in the prescribed format along with the comment is of the CCITI Pr. CIT/CIT on merits of the Page 13 of 23 application submitted by us to the Chairman, CBDT vide our letter dated 10.07.2020 to the Deputy secretary (OT& WT), Central Board of Direct tax, as requested vide their letter in No.FNo.312/114/2020-0T dated 24.08.2020. (i) Copies of the correspondence that were made between the Director (0T & WT), Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-
tax, in respect of our above said application for condoning the delay in filing of Income-tax Returns.
2. This RTI application was originally filed before the Deputy Commissioner of Income tax (0T& WT), New Delhi. The same was transferred by the DCIT(OT&WT) to this office on 08.02.2024. Subsequently, the RTI application was disposed of vide order dated 04.03.2024 u/s. 7 of the RTI Act, by providing the following reply for above-mentioned queries: "In this case, the Board have arrived A final decision based on the factual report submitted by the field authorities. Copies of the Board's final order vide letter in FNO.312/113/2020-0d dated 08.11.2023 and FNO.312/13/2022-0T dated 08.1I. 2023 are enclosed for reference.
3. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed an RTI appeal, belatedly, on 02.05.2024, before the FAA Additional Commissioner of Income tax (HÌ)(Coord), Olo Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu & Puducherry.
4. Thereafter, the FAA, vide its order dated 04.06.2024 disposed of the RTI appeal the following observation:
"--9. The appeal and material available on record were duly perused by the undersigned and it is observed that:
(i) On perusal of the Board's order u/s 119(2) (b) in the case of M/s. Indian Garnet Sand Co (P) ltd for the A.Y 2013-14 to 2018-19, vide FNo:312/113/2020-0T dated 08.11.2023 and FNo.312/1 1 3/2022-0T dated 08.11.2023, it is seen that the content of the factual report, as submitted by the filed authorities along with date of correspondence were mentioned in detailed in the Board's final order.
(ii) CIC. In view of the above, the CPIO, in it's reply have provided copies of the final Board's Order us 119(2)(b) in the case of M/s. Indian Garnet Sand Co (P) Ltd for the A.Y: 2013-14 to 2018-19, vide FNo.312/1 13/2020-OT dated 08.11.2023.
However, the applicant is dissatisfied with this order of CPIO. "
5. Further, in its order, the FAA noted that the decision of the Hon'ble CIC in F. No. CIC/AT/A/2007/01496 dated 16th of May 2008 in the case of Shri Rajesh Mannalal Katariya vs Shri Sandip Pradhan, Addl. CIT, Pune & CPIO squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In its decision, the Hon'ble CIC held" "---- The decision whether or not to disclose this report and the reasons thereof can Page 14 of 23 be best taken by the CBDT and not the officers below viz. CIT and CCIT, Pune, who submitted their report to the CBDT.
6. Relying on the above decision of the Hon'ble CIC, the FAA dismissed the appeal of the appellant. Now, the appellant has filed appeal before the Hon'ble CIC.
Para wise comments to the Ground of appeal No ground of appeal were received along with the Notice of Hearing for appeal/Complaint dated 12.08.2025 Written Submission:
1. In this case, the company M/s Indian Garnet Sand Co Pvt Ltd (PAN:
AAACIIS05K) filed a petition dated 10.07.2020 before the Central Board of Direct Taxes, seeking condonation for delay in filing of returns of lncome for the A.Y: 2013-14 to 2019-2020. In this regard, the Board vide letter dated 24.08.2020 called for factual report along with the comments/recommendation of the PCCIT/CCIT/PCIT.
2. Subsequently, on 08.11.2023, the CBDT passed an order u/s. 119(2)(b) disposing of the petition filed by the assessee for the A.Ys 2013-14 to 2018-19.
In its order, the content of the factual report submitted by the field authorities is elaborately discussed. A copy of this order was also provided to the appellant by the CPIO while disposing of his RTI petition vide order dated 04.03.2024. However, aggrieved with this RTI order the appellant filed an appeal before the FAA requesting copies of the factual report submitted by the PCCIT along with the comments of the CCIT/PCIT to the Board.
3. In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that when a report is requested by a higher authority from its subordinate officer, such report submitted, falls under the control of that higher authority. Consequently, the decision to disclose the report's contents and the reasoning behind that decision rests exclusively with such higher authority. This view is based on the decision of the Hon'ble CIC in the case of Shri Rajesh Mannalal Katariya vs Shri Sandip Pradhan, Add!. CIT, Pne & CPIO, wherein, the CIC held as under:
"the appellant has requested, was a communication sent by the Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Pune, Shri S. M. Gadgil to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune, Shri H.0.K. Shrivastava, which was forwarded by the latter with a covering note to the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), the Apex body of the lncome Tax Department. The respondents' plea is that when a superior body calls for a report from a lower officer / authority, the report so submitted comes within the control of the superior body and should be sought from there, if at all.Page 15 of 23
4. Commission finds merit in this submission of the respondents. It is admitted that a report as mentioned by the appellant was submitted by the Commissioner of Income Tax to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, which along with the CCIT's covering note, is held by the CBDT (under Section 2) of the RTI Act. The decision whether Or not to disclose this report and the reasons thereof can be best taken by the CBDT and not the officers below, viz. C.I.T. and C.C.I.T., Pune, who submitted their report to the CBDT.
5. In view of the above, it is held that the decision of the respondents not to disclose the requested information was valid under the provisions of the RTI Act. The appellant may, should he so wish, approach the CBDT for the information, who will no-doubt process the case under the provisions of the RTI Act for a decision about disclosure or otherwise.
4. In this case report called for by CBDT from the field authorities was duly submitted and the content of the same was also discussed in the final order passed by the CBDT on 08.11.2023. Therefore, decision on whether or not to disclose the report submitted by the field authority can only be taken by the CBDT. In view of the above decision, it is humbly submitted that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant and the same is liable to be dismissed. Decision:
13. The Commission, at the outset observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the information sought in instant RTI Applications is cumbersome, extremely voluminous, requires compilation, indeterminate in nature and it does not even conform to Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012.
14. Even if, the Commission was to empathetically consider the concerns raised by the Appellant through the Second Appeals, he is reminded of the fact that his right to information is far from being absolute and unconditional. That, it is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions has to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by the superior Courts in a catena of judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and Page 16 of 23 all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). 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. 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 prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties." (Emphasis added)
15. Despite this, the Respondents have made sincere efforts to provide proper reply intimating factual position in response to both the RTI application by themselves and through transferee CPIOs which is as per the provisions of the RTI Act and do not require interference from the Commission.
16. The Commission upon adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records observes that appropriate response has been provided by the Respondent vide their letters dated 11.12.2023, 04.03.2024 and now vide written submission dated Nil which are in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act and accordingly, upheld by the Commission.Page 17 of 23
17. Further, the Commission would also like to draw attention of the parties towards a judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a case titled Central Public Information Officer vs. Kailash Chandra Moondra, W.P.(C) 340/2023 & CM APPL. 1348/2023, wherein it was categorically held that the Right to Information Act, 2005 and Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deal with disclosure of information. While the Right to Information Act is a general law concerning the disclosure of information by the public authorities, Section 138 of the Income Tax Act is a special legislation dealing with disclosure of information concerning the assesses. The relevant extract of the aforesaid order is reproduced hereinbelow:
"...15. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, Section 138 (1)(b) and Section 138 (2) of the IT Act which lays down a specific procedure relating to disclosure of information relating to a third party under the IT Act would override Section 22 of the RTI Act. The information sought for by the Respondent herein is clearly covered by Section 138(1)(b) of the IT Act. The satisfaction of Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is, therefore, necessary before such information can be divulged. That satisfaction cannot be abrogated to any other authority under a general Act for divulging the information sought for.
16. The said judgment has been followed by the Apex Court in Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 2007 SCC OnLine CIC 315.
17. In Chief Information Commr. v. High Court of Gujarat, (2020) 4 SCC 702, when an issue was raised over furnishing of information of certified copies obtained from the High Court of Gujarat by invoking the provisions of the RTI Act, the Apex Court, while resorting to the Gujarat High Court Rules, has observed as under:
"35. The non obstante clause of the RTI Act does not mean an implied repeal of the High Court Rules and orders framed under Article 225 of the Constitution of India; but only has an overriding effect in case of inconsistency. A special enactment or rule cannot be held to be overridden by a later general enactment simply because the latter opens up with a non obstante clause, unless there is clear inconsistency between the two Page 18 of 23 legislations. In this regard, we may usefully refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka [R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 1 SCC 335: 1992 SCC (L&S) 286] wherein, the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC pp. 356-57, para 38).
"38. In Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India [Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 127: 1984 SCC (L&S) 355], Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as his Lordship then was) observed thus: (SCC p. 153, para 38).
"38. ... As mentioned hereinbefore if the Scheme was held to be valid, then the question what the general law is and what is the special law and which law in case of conflict would prevail would have arisen and that would have necessitated the application of the principle "generalia specialibus non derogant". The general rule to be followed in case of conflict between the two statutes is that the later abrogates the earlier one. In other words, a prior special law would yield to a later general law, if either of the two following conditions is satisfied:
"(i) The two are inconsistent with each other.
(ii) There is some express reference in the later to the earlier enactment."
If either of these two conditions is fulfilled, the later law, even though general, would prevail.'"
(emphasis supplied)
18. Applying the said analogy to the facts of the present case, Section 138(1)(b) of the IT Act which specifically states that information relating to an assessee can only be supplied subject to the satisfaction of Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, would prevail over Section 22 of the RTI Act.
19. The issue raised herein has been settled by a Bench of three Member Bench of the CIC which, in the opinion of this Court, is binding on the Bench which has passed the impugned order. A Bench of three Commissioners of the CIC in G.R. Rawal v. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), 2008 SCC OnLine CIC 1008, while considering the very same issue has observed as under:Page 19 of 23
"15. Thus, both the Right to Information Act, 2005 and Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deal with disclosure of information. While Right to Information Act is a general law concerning the disclosure of information by the public authorities, Section 138 of the Income Tax Act is a special legislation dealing with disclosure of information concerning the assesses. This Commission in "Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. ITAT, decided on 18th September 2007 decided by a Full Bench, has dealt with the issue of applicability of special law to the exclusion of the general law. The Commission has relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in "Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla -- AIR 2002 SC 2322". The following two paragraphs from the said decision of the Commission are pertinent and quoted below:
37. A special enactment or Rule, therefore, cannot be held to be overridden by a later general enactment or simply because the latter opens up with a non obstante clause unless there is clear inconsistency between the two legislations -- one which is later in order of time and the other which is a special enactment. This issue came again for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla -- AIR 2002 SC 2322 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted with approval the Broom's Legal Maxim in reference to two Latin Maxims in the following words:
"It is then, an elementary Rule that an earlier Act must give place to a later, if the two cannot be reconciled - lex posterior derogate priori - non est novum ut priores leges ad posteriors trahantur (Emphasis supplied) - and one Act may repeal another by express words or by implication; for it is enough if there be words which by necessary implication repeal it. But repeal by implication is never to be favoured, and must not be imputed to the legislature without necessity, or strong reason, to be shown by the party imputing it. It is only effected where the provisions of the later enactment are so inconsistent with, or repugnant to, those of the earlier that the two cannot stand together2; unless the two Acts are so plainly repugnant to each other that effect cannot be given to both at the same time a repeal cannot be implied; and special Acts are not repealed by general Acts unless there be Page 20 of 23 some express reference to the previous legislation, or a necessary inconsistency in the two Acts standing together, which prevents the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant (Emphasis supplied) from being applied. For where there are general words in a later Act capable of reasonable application without being extended to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, then, in the absence of an indication of a particular intention to that effect, the presumption is that the general words were not intended to repeal the earlier and special legislation, or to take away a particular privilege of a particular class of persons."
38. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Apex Court also cited with approval an earlier decision in Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur v. Thakur Manmohan Dey-MANU/SC/0202/1966, in which it was indicated that an earlier special law cannot be held to have been abrogated by mere implication. That being so, the argument regarding implied repeal has to be rejected for both the reasons set out above."
Propriety demanded that the CIC ought to have followed the opinion of the larger Bench, which is binding on it."
18. Hence, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in these matters.
19. However, in the spirit of the RTI Act, the Respondent is directed to share a copy of his latest written submission along with enclosures, free of charge with the Appellant, within one week of the date of receipt of this order.
20. Be that as it may, the Commission from perusal of records observes that more than 90 cases of the same Appellant against same and related Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In addition, six number of Second Appeals are also listed for today's hearing. The Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information repeatedly. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.
21. It appears that the Appellant has been repeatedly seeking information on similar subject matters, thus using up the time and resources of the Public Page 21 of 23 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 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
22. Therefore, the Commission counsels the Appellant not to file 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.Page 22 of 23
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..."
23. Hence, the Appellant is advised to make judicious use of his Right to Information in future.
The appeals are 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 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - I, Wanaparthy Block, Aayakar Bhawan, 121, M.G. Road, Chennai - 600034 Page 23 of 23 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)