Central Information Commission
Shri Shyam Sunder Prasad, Ms. Uma Devi & ... vs Income Tax Department on 30 April, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00273, 333 & 492
Dated, the 30th April, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Shyam Sunder Prasad (Appeal No.273)
Ms. Uma Devi (Appeal No.333)
Ms. Sunita Ranjan (Appeal No.492)
Respondents : Income Tax Department
This matter came up for a final hearing on 16.04.2009. Appellants were present through their rep., Shri Shishu Ranjan. Respondents were present through Shri Anand Kishore, Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Patna.
2. Appellants, in their RTI-applications dated 26.02.2007, 06.10.2007 and 05.01.2007 (Annexed to this order), had called for information relating to as well as the return of documents seized from, the premises of Shri Shyam Sunder Prasad (one of the appellants) by the officers of the public authority during a raid in the year 1988. A Panchnama was recorded on 11.12.1988, in which the documents and material seized were classified under categories such as C, C1, C2, and C3.
3. Appellant's attempts to receive back the documents seized from him by the public authority proved to be futile as these had gone missing, attributed by the public authority to the reorganization of the offices and creation of new offices, among others. However, following proceedings initiated by the appellant under the RTI Act, respondents mounted an elaborate search to locate the documents and managed to provide quite a sizeable part of it to the appellant in stages.
4. Commission had issued to the respondents a notice on the basis of its interim order dated 31.12.2008 as to why compensation should not be directed to be paid to the appellant for the detriment suffered by him on account of the loss of the documents admittedly seized by the public authority from his premises. The Chairman, CBDT's reply dated 06.02.2009 has been received in the Commission.
5. Finally, after all searches for the location of the documents had been made, and the meaning of C, C1, C2 and C3 categories in the Panchnama dated 11.12.1988 had been deciphered, it was found that AT-30042009-35.doc Page 1 of 4 the subject-matters of the dispute between the appellant and the respondents now are documents relating to Categories C1 and C2. They pointed out that in an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in 1995 an inkling of what was contained in the documents listed as C1 and C2 was given. The assessment order passed following the raid on the appellant's premises also mentioned it. Contrary to what the appellant has been urging that the C1 and C2 comprised and included property related documents, the Income Tax Appellate Order of 1995 and the assessment order make no such mention. Respondents further pointed out that on 29.08.2005, appellant as assessee gave to the Income Tax Department details of all his properties. Respondents argued that without having the custody and ownership of the property documents the appellant could not have provided the details to the income tax authorities of its properties. According to respondents, this was proof that the appellant's property documents were not held by respondents but were in appellant's own custody.
6. Appellant argued that the matter before the Commission was not to prove or disprove what Categories C1 and C2 of the Panchnama contained, but the responsibility of the public authority to keep in safe custody documents admittedly seized from the appellant during an income tax raid.
7. Respondents reiterated the fact that C1 and C2 contained only loose sheets from serial numbers 1 to 16 and an exercise book followed by loose sheets. No vital documents of any importance were listed under Categories C1 and C2.
Decision:
8. After hearing the submissions of both parties, one thing which emerged is that at this distance of time, it is not possible to clearly state as to what were the documents listed under Categories C1 and C2 in the Panchnama dated 11.12.1988. But it is equally true that some papers / documents were seized from the appellant by the Income Tax authorities, who classified these as C1 and C2 in the Panchnama. The respondents have by now lost sight of the documents and also about its custody.
9. No amount of deliberation is going to establish as to what C1 and C2 represented.
AT-30042009-35.doc Page 2 of 4
10. I have my sympathy with the appellant who has been served badly by the Department whose duty it was to keep in safe custody the documents and records and material they seized from his premises during a raid. If seized materials are allowed to be misplaced or lost needing elaborate deliberation even to establish their identities, it shall be a sad reflection on the department's function. I only hope this phenomenon is a rarity and is not widespread in all Wings of the Department.
11. It is important that the Department of Income Tax and its highest decision-makers in the CBDT put in place dependable and sophisticated systems of record and document maintenance in order to ensure that such events ⎯ unhappy as these are ⎯ do not recur.
12. Appellant stated that by fighting battles at all fronts, he is now a beaten and exhausted man and was no more in a position to continue his fight further. He, therefore, urged that the matter be closed at the Commission's level. His only plea was that, in case, at a future date, the respondents manage to locate the property documents, which he claims, they had seized from him, or any other material which was classified in the Panchnama as Categories C1 and C2; they should reach out to the appellant to return those documents / material to him. Respondents readily agreed.
13. I, therefore, want to bring this painful hearing to an end as no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging it further. It also doesn't make any sense to award compensation or impose penalties in a matter in which both sides have so readily co-operated with each other to make sure that justice is done to the appellant. I would, therefore, allow the matter to rest at that.
14. Appellant requested the Commission to mention it to the State Government authorities of Bihar to help the appellant obtain the duplicates of his property documents which were allegedly seized by the Income Tax Department and then lost.
15. It is directed that the Commission Secretariat will write to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Bihar with a request that the authorities dealing with registration of records in Nalanda District may be instructed to help this appellant obtain the duplicates of the records which he has lost in unfortunate circumstances.
AT-30042009-35.doc Page 3 of 4
16. The appeals are, therefore, directed to be closed.
17. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT-30042009-35.doc Page 4 of 4