Central Information Commission
Bimalkumar Bhattacharya vs Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited ... on 1 April, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ONGCL/A/2023/115651
Shri Bimalkumar Bhattacharya ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
(ONGC)
Date of Hearing : 27.03.2024
Date of Decision : 27.03.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.07.2022
PIO replied on : 27.07.2022
First Appeal filed on : 07.11.2022
First Appellate Order on : 07.11.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 10.04.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.07.2022 seeking information on the following points:-
"(A) Complete document of order of the Honourable Bombay High Court, as mentioned in note: 1 of your reply.
(B) Details about (i) the case and category no. (ii) applicant(s), (iii) opponent(s), and
(iv) date of the order of the Honourable Bombay High Court. (C) Date on which the document of your reply (attached herewith) was first communicated to the employee with evidence. This is with reference to note: 4 and 5 of your reply.
(D) Complete calculation sheet showing how the amount of Ex - Emp Acc rec of Rs.
24637 was arrived at. Please furnish applicable assumptions, inputs and data considered for this calculation.
(E) Details (percentage, amount per month etc.) of basis of deductions made earlier than implementation of the abovementioned order of the Honourable Bombay High Court.
(F) Details (percentage, amount per month etc.) of basis of deductions made while implementing the abovementioned order of the Honourable Bombay High Court. Etc."
Page 1 of 4The CPIO vide reply dated 27.07.2022 provided a copy of letter dated 16.02.2021 along with annexures related to TDS pertaining to the Appellant. The letter dated 16.02.2021 contained the following detailed information:
A writ petition was filed by ONGC's Association of Scientific and Technical Officers (ASTO) before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court challenging constitutional validity of Rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, regarding valuation of perquisite in respect of housing accommodation provided by ONGC to its employees. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court had, vide its interim order dated 20-02-1996, restrained ONGC and the Income-tax Department from deducting/recovering TDS on account of housing perquisites. Accordingly, no TDS was effected in respect of housing perquisite during the period of interim relief granted by the Bombay High Court. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by the Bombay High Court vide its judgment dated 15-03-2010 and, as a result, the interim injunction granted by it came to an end. Consequently, ONGC started including perquisite value in respect of housing accommodation in the salary income of the employees.
A Special Leave Petition (SLP) was, however, filed by ONGC before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against Bombay High Court's judgment praying therein to exempt ONGC from requirement of depositing TDS on housing perquisites for past years. Nevertheless, pending disposal of SLP by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, details of tax in respect of housing perquisites for the period of interim relief (ie, from FY 1995-96 to 2009-10) was worked out in respect of the employees who availed ONGC's accommodation during the above period and from whom no TDS was deducted by virtue of Bombay High Court's injunction. The amount of TDS so worked out was withheld from the employees who superannuated before disposal of SLP by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to make good of the demands raised by the Income-tax Department in the event of unfavorable outcome of SLP.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its judgment dated 07-01-2012, disposed of the aforesaid SLP wherein ONGC was directed to quantify the liability equivalent to the amount of TDS which was deductible and payable on housing perquisites (for the period during which Bombay High Court's interim relief was in force i.e. from FY 1995-96 to FY 2009-10 alongwith applicable interest thereon. The demands were deposited pursuant to the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and TDS component thereof was recovered from the employees. In the cases of employees who had superannuated before disposal of SLP by the Supreme Court, the amounts withheld were used for meeting TDS demands.
It was further clarified to the Appellant vide the same letter dated 16.02.2021 that:
(I) The amount of Rs. 2,46,537 withheld .. was equivalent to the TDS applicable on housing perquisite which was not deducted and deposited by virtue of interim relief granted by Bombay High Court during the period from FY 1995-96 to FY 2009-10.
(II) The aforesaid amount was subsequently deposited to the credit of Central Government by Mumbai office of ONGC pursuant to the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court being TDS applicable on housing perquisite in respect of ONGC's accommodation availed .. over the years (from FY 1995-96 to FY 2009-10).
A statement showing the break-up of the amount of TDS pertaining to different financial years (during which ONGC's accommodation was availed you) and the details of challans and SBI reference no. in respect of deposit of TDS demands Page 2 of 4 by Mumbai office is attached herewith at Annexure-1. Copies of challans used for depositing TDS demands pertaining to you are also attached at Annexure-2. (III) The amount of Rs. 2,46,537 was not deducted as TDS from your salary income of the respective financial years. Rather, the same was deposited pursuant to the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. As such, the amount so deposited was not mentioned in the TDS Statements filed for the relevant quarters and, hence, the same did not get reflected in Form 26AS. Pertinently, as brought out above, the amount withheld from you did not represent the applicable TDS for FY 2011-12 and the same pertains to TDS on housing perquisite applicable over the years from FY 1995-96 to FY 2009-10.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 07.11.2022 held as under:-
"CPIO, Vadodara has replied to the query of the applicant as per letter dated 16.02.2021 as per the RTI Act 2005. The reply sent is upheld. The appeal is accordingly disposed off."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 14.03.2024 has been received from the CPIO furnishing point wise response, in consonance with the response provided earlier, as discussed hereinabove.
The Appellant has also filed a written submission dated 20.03.2024 reiterating that no information has been received by him.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Dr. Vijay Singh - CPIO was present through video conference during the hearing.
Both parties reiterated their respective contentions as noted above. Appellant contended that he is not satisfied with the information provided by the Respondent and seeks redressal with respect to deduction of his TDS. The Respondent replied that all the available information about deduction of TDS in terms of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been provided to the Appellant and documentary evidence thereof is already annexed with the Second Appeal.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case reveals that the Respondent had duly furnished appropriate response to the Appellant, on the basis of information available on record with the public authority as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In view of the aforementioned fact, no legal infirmity is found in the action of the PIO. The Appellant seeks redressal of his grievance which does not fall within the ambit Page 3 of 4 of the RTI Act, hence, no further intervention is deemed necessary in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4