Central Information Commission
M Shankar Swamy vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 15 July, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CCITB/A/2018/610444-BJ
Mr. M. Shankar Swamy
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
ITO, Ward - 1, Income Tax Department
Office of the Income Tax Officer
Ward - 1, Mandya, Cauvery Park Road
Front of DC Office, Mandya - 571401 (Karnataka)
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09.07.2019
Date of Decision : 15.07.2019
Date of RTI application 28.08.2017
CPIO's response 05.09.2017
Date of the First Appeal 28.09.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 24.10.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points relating to the details of File no. 02/16-17/Ward-1/Mandya for Tax Evasion Complaint filed against Mr. B. M. Nagaraju, whether the assesses had reported to the Respondent Public Authority and provided details on the TEP, and if the investigation in the matter is completed, then the broad outcome of such investigation.
The CPIO, vide its reply dated 05.09.2017, provided a point-wise response to the Appellant, wherein, the information sought under point no. 02 was denied u/s 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, as the information requested was personal in nature. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 24.10.2017, concurred with the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:Page 1 of 3
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Baburaj, ITO Ward 1 through VC;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Vinoth Network Engineer NIC studio at Bangalore confirmed the absence of the Appellant. The Respondent while explaining the background of the matter submitted that Mr. B. M. Nagaraju had filed ITR from the A.Y. 2011- 12 to 2017-18 (2016-17 and 2017-18 were e-filed) and the details of same could not be divulged as it was covered under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, there was nothing on record to prove that the furnishing of such information was warranted by larger public interest. It was further informed that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer did not find any infirmity to open his case for scrutiny under the Income Tax Act, 1961. On being queried by the Commission whether they could disclose the factual position/broad outcome of the investigation, if any, carried out by the Assessing Officer, he agreed to share the status in the matter in respect of TEP filed by the Appellant.
In this regard, the Commission referred to the order dated 18/06/2013 (File No. CIC/RM/A/2012/000926 Sh. Ved Prakash Doda v/s ITO) wherein it was held as under:
"6. It has been the stand of the Commission that in respect of a tax evasion petition, once the investigation is completed, the appellant should be informed the broad results of the investigation, without disclosing any details. The appellant has a right to know as to whether the information provided by him was found to be true or false."
While relying on the aforementioned decision of the Commission in the matter of Ved Prakash Doda, the Commission in Mohd Naeem Ahmed vs. CPIO, ITO, CRU, New Delhi and CPIO, ITO, Ward 56 (1), New Delhi in CIC/CC/A/2015/004382/BS/10949 dated 29.07.2016 held as under:
"In the matter at hand investigation/assessment is in progress. The CPIO/ITO Ward 56(1) should disclose the broad outcome of the TEP to the appellant as soon as the assessment is completed."
The aforementioned decision was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Mohd. Naeem Ahmed vs. Director of Income Tax and Ors, WP (C) 1112/2018 dated 27.03.2019. The relevant extracts of the order are mentioned hereunder:
"3. Mr. Bharat Bhushan Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, during his arguments stated that he would be satisfied if the petitioner is informed the ultimate outcome of the investigation / assessment. It goes without saying that in terms of the direction of the CIC, the CPIO / ITO of the Ward concerned is / are required to disclose the broad outcome of the TEP to the petitioner herein. There is no reason to disbelieve that they shall not disclose the same after the investigation / assessment is over.
4. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents assures the Court that the said procedure shall be followed in this case. Taking the statement on record, I am of the view no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition"
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
Page 2 of 3DECISION:
In the light of the facts available on record and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission instructs the Respondent to disclose the Broad Outcome of the TEP/Investigation in respect of the queries raised by the Appellant in his RTI application within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 15.07.2019
Page 3 of 3