Central Information Commission
Shri S.P. Goyal, Smt. Yogita Chavan & ... vs Income Tax Department, Mumbai & Others on 21 July, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
CIC/AT/A/2007/01271 CIC/AT/A/2007/01272 CIC/AT/A/2007/01273
CIC/AT/A/2007/01274 CIC/AT/A/2007/01275 CIC/AT/A/2007/01282
CIC/AT/A/2007/01309 CIC/AT/A/2007/01323 CIC/AT/A/2007/01327
CIC/AT/A/2007/01329 CIC/AT/A/2007/01330 CIC/AT/A/2007/01331
CIC/AT/A/2007/01335 CIC/AT/A/2007/01336 CIC/AT/A/2007/01349
CIC/AT/A/2007/01350 CIC/AT/A/2007/01351 CIC/AT/A/2007/01352
CIC/AT/A/2007/01353 CIC/AT/A/2007/01354 CIC/AT/A/2008/00007
CIC/AT/A/2007/01559 CIC/AT/A/2007/01560 CIC/AT/A/2007/01561
Total 24 Appeals
Dated, the 21st July, 2008.
Appellant : Shri S.P. Goyal
Smt. Yogita Chavan
Smt. Smita Pawar
Respondents : (i) Income Tax Department, Mumbai
(ii) Central Board of Direct Taxes
(iii) Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation)
(iv) Directorate General of Income Tax (Systems)
(v) Central Research Control Laboratory
These are 24 second-appeals filed by Shri S.P.Goyal, Smt.Yogita Chavan and Smt.Smita Pawar against various public authorities, viz. (i) Income Tax Department, Mumbai; (ii) Central Board of Direct Taxes; (iii) Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation); (iv) Directorate General of Income Tax (Systems); (v) Central Research Control Laboratory and (vi) Customs Department, New Delhi. These cases were heard by the Commission through video-conferencing on 02.06.2008, 09.06.2008, 16.06.2008 and 23.06.2008. Appeals are taken up for disposal as below:-
Appeal Nos. CIC/AT/A/2007/01271, 01275, 01559, 01560 & 01561 Appellant Shri S.P. Goyal Respondents DGIT (Investigation)
2. These 5 appeals have been filed by Shri S.P. Goyal (appellant) soliciting information from the DGIT (Investigation) corresponding to appellant's RTI-applications dated 26.06.2007, 26.06.2007, 24.08.2007, 08.08.2007 and 08.08.2007.
Page 1 of 133. Respondents pointed out that following the RTI-applications, some information was provided to the appellant by the CPIO through his communications dated 07.08.2007, 07.08.2007, 27.09.2007, 10.09.2007 and 07.09.2007. Matter was also heard in first-appeal by the AA, who passed orders dated 30.08.2007, 30.08.2007, 05.11.2007, 05.11.2007 and 05.11.2007.
4. However, when the matter was still pending with the CIC for consideration of the second-appeals, the government through its notification dated 27.03.2008 declared DGIT(Inv) as an organization exempted from the purview of the RTI Act under Section 24 read with Second Schedule of the RTI Act.
5. Respondents, therefore, claimed that the proceedings in these matters should be closed on account of the exempt status now granted to the DGIT(Investigation).
6. Appellant argued that since his petitions pre-dated the exemption granted to the DGIT (Investigation), hearing in these matters should not take into account the exemption.
7. On considering all the pleas in this matter, it is noted that the exemption to a public authority under Section 24 of the RTI Act, read with its Second Schedule, becomes effective in respect of all pending matters ― whether original, or in appeal ― from the date the exemption became applicable, which in this case is 27.03.2008. If these appeals are processed as if the exemption was never granted to DGIT (Investigation) ― as demanded by appellant― then it might result in a somewhat odd result i.e. information being authorized to be disclosed in respect of an organization, which is known to be exempt from the purview of the RTI Act. There is merit in the argument of the respondents that if an information related to the DGIT (Investigation) was undisclosed on the date the exemption to DGIT(Investigation) under Section 24 came into force, i.e. 27.03.2008, the information cannot be allowed to be disclosed merely on the ground that the applicant's RTI-request for disclosure of information relating to DGIT(Investigation) was made prior to the crucial date. All undisclosed information ― whether part of an ongoing proceeding, or new proceeding ― will come within the exemption granted to the public authority, i.e. DGIT (Investigation). The information, therefore, cannot be authorized to be disclosed under Section 24 read with Second Schedule of the RTI Act.
8. Appeals dismissed.
Page 2 of 13Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2007/01272:
Appellant Shri S.P. Goyal
Respondents Customs Department
9. The respondents pointed out at the outset that some parts of the information requested by the appellant in this case related to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), which cannot be disclosed, as DRI was an organization exempt under Section 24 read with Second Schedule of the RTI Act. They further pointed out that all information originating from and relating to DRI ― no matter where it is held ― should be exempt from disclosure under Section 24 of the RTI Act. It is the submission of the respondents that they have already disclosed to the appellant information pertaining to his queries in his RTI-application dated 27.03.2007 figuring at items 3, 4, 6 and 7. The information requested at items 1, 2, 5 and 9 related to the DRI and hence could not be disclosed under Section 24 of the RTI Act. In spite of this, whatever information respondents could disclose as regards these items, they did through their reply dated 24.04.2007.
10. The point for consideration is whether for all DRI-related queries, the exemption under Section 24 read with Second Schedule of the RTI Act will apply. In fact I see no reason why it shouldn't. Appellant has made some vague sounds about human rights violation and corruption that, according to him, should commend waiver of the exemption applicable to DRI under Section 24. These pleadings are not convincing. The statutory exemption granted to a public authority cannot be lightly revoked on the basis of unsubstantiated charges. This is consistent with the decision of the Commission in similar cases in the past. (Kalu Ram Jain Vs. Directorate of Enforcement; Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/01260; Date of Decision: 16.07.2008)
11. As regards Panchnama, the respondents submitted that a copy of the Panchnama in respect of B/E No.110713 dated 19.01.1990 was handed over to Shri H.L.Goyal, one of the partners of M/s.Sanjeev Woollen Mills, in which the appellant is the other partner. The respondents further submitted that a copy of the Panchnama was supplied to Shri S.P.Goyal (appellant) on 03.06.2008 in another RTI-proceeding.
12. As such, there shall be no further disclosure obligation as regards this item of information.
13. As regards inspection of files relating to the appellant's case, the respondents pointed out that the appellant had already inspected the same files earlier on 12.01.2007 and should not be allowed the luxury of repeated inspections, which imposes cost on the public authority in terms of both money Page 3 of 13 and effort. Respondents' contention is upheld. As the copy of the document is already given to the appellant, there is no reason why the public authority should be forced to provide it to him repeatedly. As a disclosed information is no more 'held' by the public authority ― at least in respect of the party who had received the information ― this appellant is one such ― it is, therefore, directed that the respondents need not allow further inspection of the records by the appellant.
14. In view of paras 9 and 10, it is decided that no further information need be disclosed to the appellant.
15. Appeal Rejected.
Appeal Nos. CIC/AT/A/2007/01323, 1327, 1329, 1351, 1352 and 1353 Appellant Shri S.P. Goyal Respondents Income Tax, Mumbai
16. Upon hearing the parties, the Commission noted that through his RTI-applications dated 13.04.2007, 14.04.2007, 02.07.2007, 02.07.2007, 22.06.2007, 14.06.2007 and 18.06.2007, Shri Goyal has demanded reasons and explanations from a properly constituted statutory authority such as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in regard to actions taken by that authority in a quasi-judicial proceeding. The appellant cannot be authorized to access such information as it is fully covered by the ratio of the Commission's decision in Virchand A. Shah Vs. Central Excise; Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/01298; Date of Decision: 18.06.2008, in which it was held that the reasons for any administrative / quasi-judicial decision are those as may be found in the body of the decision itself, or from the file in which that decision was made.
17. As such, there shall be no disclosure obligation as regards these second-appeals.
18. Appeals disallowed.
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/01273:
Appellant Shri S.P. Goyal
Respondents Customs Department
19. The appellant, through his RTI-application dated 22.03.2007, had raised the following queries:-
"1. Please provide certified copy of B/E No.110537 dated 29.12.89.Page 4 of 13
2. Please provide certified copy of TR-6 of Rs.5,16,400/-, the payment taken by your department from Indian Overseas Bank against letter of guarantee No.047/2/90 dated 17.3.90 as per order of CESTAT.
3. Please provide certified copy of order in original and order in appeal passed against B/E No.110537 dated 29.12.89 against show cause notice No.DRI/No.50/25-IIIV/80 dated 21.3.91.
4. Please fix date and time to inspect all your files relevant to Bill of Entry No.110537 dated 29.12.89. The charges of inspection will be paid as per provision of Right to Information Act 2005."
20. The respondents have provided information corresponding to items 2 and 3; as regards item 1, they have pleaded that the file was untraceable being very old and as regards item 4, it was their submission that this matter was personal entirely to Shri S.P. Goyal and his group companies and since its disclosure has no public interest or related to any public activity, it was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The AA, through his order, directed the CPIO to provide 'certified copies' of the documents, photocopies of which were earlier supplied to the appellant by the CPIO. He upheld the CPIO's decision in all other respects.
21. Appellant argued that department was deliberately hiding the information in order to keep secret their illegal acts. However, he has produced no evidence in support of these charges.
22. Upon perusing the documents, it is noted that the respondents have supplied to the appellant all information available in their records corresponding to his RTI-queries. The appellant's contention that the respondents were acting mala-fide to deny him information, does not pass muster as it stands alone ― without any evidentiary support. In overall consideration, the Commission finds no infirmity in the orders of the AA, which are upheld. Appeal dismissed.
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/01274:
Appellant Shri S.P. Goyal
Respondents Customs Department (Import & General)
23. Even a cursory look at the RTI-application dated 01.04.2007 of the appellant leaves very little doubt that the queries were all in the nature of soliciting explanations and reasons from the respondents, which in terms of CIC's decisions in Kamal C. Tiwari Vs. Ministry of Defence; Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00360; Date of Decision: 23.11.2006 and Subhash Chandra Vs. Income Tax Department; Appeal Nos.CIC/AT/A/2007/00190 & Page 5 of 13 F.No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00291; Date of Decision: 8.6.2007 takes it outside the purview of the RTI Act (Section 2(f)).
24. Apart from the above, the queries related to information held by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), which is an exempt organization under Section 24 read with Second Schedule of the RTI Act. Nothing that has been urged by the appellant would persuade the Commission that there could be grounds to revoke the exemption enjoyed by DRI under Section 24 of the RTI Act.
25. In view of the above, the appeal is disallowed.
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/01282:
Appellant Shri S.P. Goyal
Respondents Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL)
26. This petition by the appellant before the Commission comprised two parts. One related to the subject-matter of an appeal and other was a complaint regarding provisions of misleading information and providing it late by over one month by the CPIO, Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL).
Appeal:
27. A perusal of the RTI-application dated 08.03.2007 and the replies of the CPIO dated 07.05.2007 and, of the AA dated 21.06.2007 confirms that the information provided by the respondents to the appellant was corresponding to his RTI-query and, was wholly accurate. As such, the appeal has no legs to stand.
28. Appeal, therefore, dismissed.
Complaint:
29. The complaint about 'misleading information' is unsubstantiated and is rejected.
30. As regards the delay, it is noted that no delay has been caused with mala-fide intention, or knowingly. As such, they will not attract penalty. As pointed out by the AA, the appellant was not greatly discomfited by the failure of the CPIO to mention the name and the address of the AA in CPIO's order dated 07.05.2007. The RTI Act enables the appellant to file first-appeal before any officer superior in rank to the CPIO in the public authority who would Page 6 of 13 have transmitted it to the designated AA. The appellant could even have filed his first-appeal before the CPIO to be transmitted to its appropriate destination.
31. In view of the above, although CPIO not mentioning the AA's name and designation in his communication dated 07.05.2007 to the petitioner was an error, it neither prevented the appellant from pursuing the appeal nor did it inflict any detriment on him.
32. Commission also notes that this is one of the petitions this appellant has been filing in hundreds ― all aimed at causing detriment to the public authority. This matter is also factored into in rejecting his complaint. Complaint closed at the Commission's level.
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/01309:
Appellant Shri S.P. Goyal
Respondents Income Tax, Mumbai
33. Through this RTI-application dated 18.06.2007 had asked for certain items of information pertaining to time to receive letters from assessees, arrival of staff, official timing of Income Tax (Appeal), among others. He has also raised certain points about not accepting certain letters, which he had sent through his "Office Assistant" to the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-12).
34. It was noted that the CPIO's reply is pointed to all the queries which the appellant had raised. The appellant cannot be allowed to demand explanations from the public authority about whether or not his Office Assistant was properly entertained by them in matters of receiving letters. RTI Act cannot be invoked for such purposes.
35. Similar to several other appeals filed by Shri S.P.Goyal, this appeal is also frivolous and vexatious, which merits no consideration. Rejected.
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/01330:
Appellant Shri S.P. Goyal
Respondents Central Board of Direct Taxes
36. Even a cursory look at the RTI-application of the appellant, dated 19.07.2007, leaves little room for doubt that the queries were either hypothetical or nothing more than appellant's conjectures and surmises. Besides, these were in the nature of demanding explanations from the respondents. Commission's decision in Kamal C. Tiwari Vs. Ministry of Defence; Appeal Page 7 of 13 No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00360; Date of Decision: 23.11.2006 and Subhash Chandra Vs. Income Tax Department; Appeal Nos.CIC/AT/A/2007/00190 & F.No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00291; Date of Decision: 8.6.2007 fully covered the present RTI-queries of the appellant.
37. There shall be no disclosure obligation regarding these.
38. These are frivolous and vexatious queries. Appeal disallowed.
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/01331:
Appellant Shri S.P. Goyal
Respondents Income Tax Department, Mumbai
39. Respondents pointed out during the hearing that the appellant's first-appeal petition was filed before the AA, Shri P.C.Chhotaray, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-VII, Mumbai on 20.08.2007 in respect of the CPIO's reply dated 24.05.2007, i.e. with a delay of 55 days.
40. In his written-submission before the AA, the appellant took the plea that the reason for his filing the first-appeal late was his being on tour to Delhi and Ludhiana. He, therefore, urged the first AA to condone the delay.
41. AA, through his order dated 18.09.2007, declined to condone the delay because not only appellant had failed to file first-appeal within 30 days of the CPIO's reply, he had taken another 55 days to file the first-appeal. AA noted "from the reason for condonation of delay given by the appellant, it is noticed that appellant has given a vague and general explanation for delay". Therefore, the AA rejected the first-appeal on grounds of limitation.
42. The other plea taken by the appellant before the Commission was that the AA had failed to give him a hearing and, therefore, denied him the natural justice which appellant held he was entitled to.
43. Upon hearing the parties, Commission finds no reason to interfere with the orders of the AA. The reasons for dismissing the first-appeal of the appellant given by the AA ― i.e. vague and generalized reason ― are credible. Appellant who files RTI-applications in hundreds would not have been unaware of the consequences of the delay in filing first-appeal and more so, about the grounds urged by him, which are so manifestly casual and perfunctory.
44. Since the matter came up before the Commission for hearing in second-appeal, time was devoted also to examining whether the queries as made by the appellant in his RTI-application dated 05.04.2007 merited response.
Page 8 of 1345. A perusal of the queries leaves one in no doubt that they were couched in a language which amounted to demanding explanations and reasons about certain points which the appellant had incorporated in these queries. It was also noted that a majority of these queries were about the justness of actions taken by the public authority including such queries as "whether this letter is a show-cause notice for addition or a simple letter seeking clarification...." and "Whether ITO, Mumbai is responsible for incorrect action" and so on.
46. Such queries are manifestly outside the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and have been rightly turned down by the CPIO.
47. It is, therefore, noted that both from the point of view of limitation under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act and on substantial grounds, the appellant has no case.
48. Appeal fails. Rejected.
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/01335 and 1336:
Appellant Shri S.P. Goyal
Respondents DGIT (Organization & Management Services)
DGIT (Systems)
49. These petitions are no different from certain others filed by this appellant.
50. The queries which the appellant had raised through his RTI-applications, both dated 13.04.2007 were all in the nature of demanding reasons, explanations and interpretations of laws and rules by the department. In terms of the CIC decision in Kamal C. Tiwari Vs. Ministry of Defence; Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00360; Date of Decision: 23.11.2006 and Subhash Chandra Vs. Income Tax Department; Appeal Nos.CIC/AT/A/2007/00190 & F.No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00291; Date of Decision: 8.6.2007, the appellant is not authorized to receive these.
51. Commission notes that the nature of these petitions, as in some of the above cases, are vexatious and frivolous, aimed at imposing cost on the respondents both in terms of time and money. There is no reason why these should be attended to.
52. Appeals dismissed.
Page 9 of 13Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/01349:
Appellant Ms.Yogita Chavan
Respondents Income Tax Department, Mumbai.
53. Respondents pointed out that Shri S.P.Goyal has made a habit of filing serial petitions in the same matter repeatedly. There are other applicants like the present appellant ― Ms.Yogita Chavan ― who are also collusively filing RTI-applications. The attempt by Shri Goyal is to harass the respondents. The repeated applications independently filed by Shri Goyal, or collusively by others for the same or similar information, amounted to misusing the provisions of the RTI Act. They, therefore, demanded that the petition should be dismissed as vexatious and frivolous.
54. Respondents pointed out that although Shri S.P.Goyal was allowed inspection of the same file / documents on 11.08.2006 in an earlier RTI-proceeding, he was again allowed to inspect the same files on 21.02.2008. Shri Goyal's request for certified copies was responded to by the AA. Shri Goyal was asked to make payment of the requisite fee to obtain certified copies. No payment has yet been received. The appellant can make the payment and obtain the copies.
55. It is noted that the respondents have no hesitation or reservation in disclosing the requested information to Shri Goyal. Their concern is about the tactics employed by Shri Goyal in filing multiple petitions including filing some collusively with other persons such as the present appellant, for the same information over time.
56. Commission is persuaded by the respondents' argument that the request for information and the manner in which Shri Goyal has gone about taking recourse to the RTI Act amounts to filing of frivolous and vexatious petitions. There is no reason why the resources of the State should be wasted to respond to such petitions. He makes repeated allusions to the spirit of the RTI Act. He may be well advised to imbibe some himself.
57. Since the appeal is frivolous and vexatious, it is rejected.
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/01350:
Appellant Ms.Yogita Chavan
Respondents Income Tax Department, Mumbai.
58. Respondents pointed out that the queries in the RTI-application of the appellant dated 01.06.2007 did not qualify to be 'information' in terms of Page 10 of 13 Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. They urged that the appellant demanding "opinions" of the public authority was an erroneous reading of the provisions of Section 2(f), where the words "opinions" and "advices" only referred to such advices and opinions, which were contained in the documents and records of the public authority and did not mean that anybody could use the public authority as their unpaid consultants.
59. This is one more of the many vexatious and frivolous petitions Shri Goyal is either filing or engineering in collusion with others. There is no reason why time and resources of the public authority should be wasted for such serial-petitions.
60. Contention of the respondents is upheld. Appeal rejected.
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/01354:
Appellant Smt. Smita Pawar
Respondents Income Tax Department, Mumbai.
61. Respondents informed the Commission that this application was also filed by Shri S.P. Goyal collusively with the present appellant, Smt.Smita Pawar and was part of the multiple petitions Shri Goyal was filing either himself or through others, all aimed at imposing cost and inflicting harassment at the respondents.
62. The AA dismissed the first-appeal of this appellant on the ground of this not being filed within the prescribed time-limit, i.e. ― 30 days from the date of receipt of CPIO's order. AA had stated that since no cogent reasons for extending the time-limit was urged by the appellant, the first-appeal could not be entertained.
63. Appellant has claimed that the dismissal of the first-appeal was illegal as "no hearing is given nor any evidence is sought against my reason mentioned in Appeal form 19(1)."
64. Commission took cognizance of the respondents' submission that this appellant has been misusing the provisions of RTI Act by filing petitions in hundreds with inane and frivolous queries, all aimed at annoying and disturbing the functioning of the public authority.
65. Commission notes that nothing which the appellant has urged would justify overruling the decision of the AA, who dismissed the first-appeal on grounds of time limitation. The AA's order is within the four corners of law.
Page 11 of 1366. The Commission also noted the information solicited through RTI-application dated 01.06.2007 were all explanations and reasons which took it outside the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and thereby absolving the respondents from the obligation of providing answers to these queries.
67. Appeal dismissed.
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/00007:
Appellant Smt.Yogita Chavan
Respondents Income Tax Department, Mumbai.
68. This is a request by Smt.Yogita Chavan for information relating to the Wealth Tax Return of Shri S.P.Goyal for the year 1988-89.
69. The respondents' plea was that this matter was an old one and the records were not traceable and hence the requested documents could not be furnished to the appellant.
70. They further submitted that they could not state whether these records were weeded-out and destroyed but all that they can say was that in spite of diligent search they could not trace-out this record ― old as these were.
71. The appellant argued that the respondents should be made to file an affidavit that these records were missing and the matter be referred to CBI for investigation.
72. Respondents pointed out that it was apparent that Smt.Yogita Chavan was acting in concert with Shri S.P. Goyal in requesting for the information of a third-party, who was Shri Goyal himself. Quite naturally, the third-party had no objection to this confidential document being disclosed to the appellant. Respondents wished the Commission to note the collusive action by the appellant and the third-party.
73. Respondents further pointed out that income tax related records are maintained for a period of 6 years and most often these are weeded-out thereafter. It is quite possible that this record was also weeded-out and destroyed. They, however, could not firmly state whether the document was weeded-out in view of the fact that there is neither any record of destruction nor any mention of it in their files.
74. The respondents' contention that the file is untraceable is accepted. No affidavit need be filed by respondents as demanded by appellant, in view of the fact that respondents' categorical statement to that effect is itself sufficient Page 12 of 13 testimony of their contention. Since disclosing information contained in an untraceable file would be physically impossible, Commission cannot authorize such disclosures.
75. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(A.N. TIWARI) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Authenticated by -
Sd/-
( D.C. SINGH ) Under Secretary & Asst. Registrar Page 13 of 13