Central Information Commission
Rahul Gupta vs Director General Of Income Tax (Inv.) ... on 13 September, 2024
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DGIBH/A/2023/126716
Rahul Gupta .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Office of the Director General of Income
Tax (Inv.), Bhopal, Aayakar Bhawan,
Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal - 462011. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10.09.2024
Date of Decision : 12.09.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15.03.2023
CPIO replied on : 18.04.2023
First appeal filed on : 19.04.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 04.05.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.06.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.03.2023 seeking the following information:
I need an action taken report and outcomes of the complaint and other related information in line with the Tax Evasion Petition filed by me against Shri Rajendra Mittal, Mobile Number-9926196261, Shrimati Sulochna Mittal, Mobile Number-9009057689 and Shri Mukesh Mittal, Page 1 of 11 Mobile Number- 7000043712, all residents of BW-08, Vasundhara Kundła City, Ambikapur District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) - 497001 The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 18.04.2023 stating as under:
"....2. The information sought by the applicant cannot be provided as the Office of the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Bhopal is exempted from providing such information under section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 at Sr.No.16 of the Schedule 2 of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.04.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 04.05.2023, held as under.
"Complaints received by the Investigation Wings of Income Tax are dealt as per the revised SOP vide F.No.291/21/2013-Dir(Inv. IV)/1193 dated 23.09.2016 Further, the Investigation wing has been exempted u/s 24 read with schedule second of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the CPIO has not provided desired information sought by the applicant."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Mr. A. K. Behra, ADIT (Inv.)(HQ)/CPIO present through video- conference.
Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that information on his TEP has been wrongly denied by the CPIO ignoring the aspect of human right violation in this case. He further invited attention of the Commission towards the contents of his written submission dated 27.08.2024, which is taken on record. Extract of the same are reproduced below:
"....information regarding Tax Evasion Petition dated 13-02-2023 against Shri Rajendra Mittal (PAN: AJEPM0640H), Shrimati Sulochna Mittal (PAN: ALBPM0347E) and Shri Mukesh Mittal (PAN: AJHPM8337L) resident of BW-08, Vasundhara Kundla City, Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) - 497001 filed on 13-02-2023 filed by the undersigned.Page 2 of 11
I am presenting my appeal to obtain and use the information for defence in cases filed against the applicant under Sections 498A, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act detailed herein:
1. The applicant also submits arguments in support of the appeal and cites several judgements in which it was ordered to provide information to the applicant on the related information required by him for the purpose of self-defense, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the information requested was liable to be provided by CPIO, which I have attached as Appendix-A1 to this application.
2. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the first F.I.R. was filed in November 2022, which is about 22 months ago, and police investigations cannot continue indefinitely because our fundamental rights are being violated. We need evidence to conclude the F.I.R. In another F.I.R., my remarks were not considered on record because they were not backed by evidence, but statements made by estranged wife were included in the final chargesheet despite the lack of proof. So, in accordance with the RTI Act, I respectfully request that the requested information be disclosed I would like to bring to your kind attention that the original Tax Evasion Petition was filed in the month of February 2023 and now in the month of August 2024, at least 18 months have passed and I would like to remind you that Tax Evasion Petition's investigations cannot go on ad-infinitum and that has to be concluded in a reasonable amount of time with reference to above Central Information Commission orders. As such I would request you to expedite the investigation and I reserve my rights to know the final result of the Tax Evasion Petition. I further request you to please record my pleadings and citations on the order sheet.
I believe to have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the basic information requested by me is liable to be provided by The Central Public Information Officer of the esteemed Income Tax Department and information cannot be denied citing the Section 24 of RTI Act 2005; since, Section 24 of the RTI Act does not provide for any exemption from disclosure information as it pertains to violations of my and my family's human rights and deep-rooted corrupt and tax evasive practices of my estranged wife's parental family, it is in the larger public interest to disclose the details of the individuals listed above in order to create an environment free of tax evasion and false dowry cases.
Appendix - A1 Judgements
1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to Campbell v. Mirror Group Newspapers Limited (2004) UKHL 22 where in it was held:
Page 3 of 11In Campbell (supra), reference was made to the Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice to further elucidate on the test of public interest which stands at the intersection of freedom of expression and the privacy rights of an individual to hold that:
1. Public interest includes:
(i) Detecting or exposing crime or a serious misdemeanour.
(ii) Protecting public health and safety.
(iii) Preventing the public from being misled by some statement or action of an individual or organisation...
2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 while explaining the term "Public Interest" held:
22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection;
something in which the public as a whole has a stake. [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]. 23. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to the circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision. Certain matters, particularly in relation to appointment, are required to be dealt with great confidentiality. The information may come to knowledge of the authority as a result of disclosure by others who give that information in confidence and with complete faith, integrity and fidelity. Secrecy of such information shall be maintained, thus, bringing it within the ambit of fiduciary capacity. Similarly, there may be cases where the disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. All these protections have to be given their due Page 4 of 11 implementation as they spring from statutory exemptions. It is not a decision simpliciter between private interest and public interest. It is a matter where a constitutional protection is available to a person with regard to the right to privacy. Thus, the public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance factor between right to privacy and right to information with the purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be served in the larger public interest, particularly when both these rights emerge from the constitutional values under the Constitution of India.
2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal (decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the following texts for defining the meaning of "public interest', which is stated as under:
Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus:
"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :
Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."
4. In case of Shri R P Srivastava v HPCL [F No. CIC/LS/A/2011/004212] dated 19.02.2012 where Central Information Commission had observed that, it would be in the larger public interest to disclose the identity of individuals facing CBI/Vigilance enquires so as to create an environment against corruption in public life.
5. This legal position has also been affirmed by another ld. Single Judge of Delhi High Court, in CPIO, Intelligence Bureau vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi [WPC 5521/2016, date of Page 5 of 11 decision 23rd August, 2017] wherein the proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 has been interpreted and it has been held in the case of corruption and human rights violations, the information of these exempted organizations can be disclosed.
6. In the case of Sh. Virag R. Dhulia Vs Income Tax Deptt; Kolkata (File No. CIC/LS/A/2009/001179) where Central Information Commission observed that "It is to be noted that investigation into a TEP cannot be allowed to go on ad-infinitum and that it should be concluded in a reasonable time frame whereafter the broad outcome thereof needs to be communicated to the appellant i.e. whether the allegations made in the TEP are fully true, partially true or untrue. No further information needs to be disclosed at this stage." and ordered the IT department "to complete the investigation in next three months time and intimate the broad outcome thereof, as indicated herein above, to the appellant in three months time."
7. In the case of Shri Chetan Anand Parashar Vs IT Department Ghaziabad where the Central Information Commission observed as " However, as regards outcome of the TEP filed by the appellant, this Commission has consistently held that outcome of the TEP can not be denied to the appellant only on the ground that the investigation is pending. Needless to say, investigation of TEP needs to be completed within a reasonable time frame and thereafter outcome thereof needs to be intimated to the person who filed the TEP so that he knows whether there is any substance in the TEP filed by him or otherwise.". It also observed that "6. Shri Kale submits that investigation into the TEP is not yet complete and is continuing. This is not an acceptable position. The investigation can not go on at infinitum and must reach a finality within a reasonable time frame."
8. In the case of Sh Manish Kumar Vs Income Tax Department (File No. CIC/LS/A/2009/001067) where Central Information Commission ordered to disclose outcome of Tax Evasion Petition.
9. In case of Shri Manoj Kumar v. CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-
Corruption Branch, Patna [F No. CIC/CBRUI/A/2017/180749/SD] dated 07.05.2018 where Central Information Commission had observed that "Even further, Commission summarily rejects the contention of the CPIO that he is required to provide information only on those allegations of corruption that pertains to their own employees, as RTI Act nowhere provides for any such exception." "Similarly, Section 24 of the RTI Act does not provide for any further exemption from disclosure once it is established that the information sought pertains to allegations of corruption and/or human rights violation."
Page 6 of 11It is due to unscrupulous actions, corrupt practices of tax evasion by Shri Rajendra Mittal (PAN: AJEPM0640H), Shrimati Sulochna Mittal (PAN: ALBPM0347E) and Shri Mukesh Mittal (PAN: AJHPM8337L), they were able to amass such a huge wealth as admitted by my estrange wife without having to pay the appropriate taxes.
10. In case of Shri M. Padamanabha Reddy Vs. Vijaya Bank, Bangalore [F No. CIC/SH/A/2015/000981] dated 25.01.2016 where Central Information Commission had observed that even where disclosure of information is protected by the exemptions under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to such protected interests, the information must be disclosed under the RTI Act; and ordered following:
In view of the arguments given above, the Commission is of the considered view that the details of defaulters of public sector banks should be revealed since it would be in larger public interest. Revealing these would serve the object of reining in such defaulters, warning Citizens about those who they should stay away from in terms of investments and perhaps shaming such persons/entities. This could lead to safeguarding the economic and moral interests of the Nation. The Commission is convinced that the benefits accruing to the economic and moral fibre of the Country, far outweigh any damage to the fiduciary relationship of bankers and their customers if the details of the top defaulters are disclosed.
Hence, in view of Section 8(2) of the RTI Act, the Commission rules that information on query 2(b) must be provided to the Appellant, since there is a larger public interest in disclosure. The Commission also directs the Governor, RBI to display this information on its website, in fulfillment of its obligations under Section 4 (1) (b) (xvii) of the RTI Act. This direction is being given under the Commission's powers under Section 19 (8) (a) (iii).
11. In the case of UNION OF INDIA versus CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMMISSION & ANR, case number LPA 734/2018 decided on 22nd March, 2022 before the High Court of Delhi [Neutral citation number 2022:DHC:1042-DB]. Wherein, The first proviso contains a rider by that an information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human right violations shall not be excluded under the Sub-section and the honourable Court believed that:
xxx Further, In para 12 of the judgement the court enumerated, Section 24 of the Right To Information Act 2005 for the interpretation of the same. The paragraph 12 is reproduced below:
xxx Page 7 of 11 Further, in para 16, the term 'human rights' was taken from the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993, which reads as follows: Furthermore, in para 17 the court interpreted the term 'Human Rights', which reads as under:
xxx In the present case since the refusal of information may prejudice the appellant upon which a Section 498A, 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of The Dowry Prohibition Act or false dowry case and thus hamper our human rights. Moreover, unearthing a huge amount of black money would lead to gains to the exchequer. The funds so received may be put to use for varied purposes including providing basic human needs of food and medical aid, thus protecting the human rights.
12. In case of Mr. M. Dinesh Vs. PIO, Bureau of Immigration, IB (MHA) [F. No. CIC/INBRU/A/2017/118048] dated 07.05.2018 where Central Information Commission had observed that "The information sought was crucial to the appellant for a fair opportunity of self defence. The Hon'ble Commission was not considering the culpability or innocence of the appellant in the criminal case set up against him; but declining a fair opportunity to arrange for material of self defence would certainly breach the human right of appellant." Para 9 and para 10 of the judgement is also reproduced below:
xxx
13. In the case of Shri Brij Ballabh Singh Vs DGIT (Inv), Lucknow dated 1.1.2010 (File No. CIC/LS/A/2009/01014) where Central Information Commission had observed that "Besides, it is also to be noted that blank ban on disclosure of information regarding the action taken on tax evasion complaints may not always be in the best interest of the state revenues. In fact, it may dis-enthuse the information givers as information givers are generally keen to know whether the information provided by them has been of some value to the authorities or not. Feed back in this regard would motivate the information givers to provide further informations to the authorities and thereby enable them to curb tax evasion and enhance the state revenues. Viewed thus, despite the office of DGIT (Inv) being an exempted organisation, it may not always be the best policy to deny some kind of feed back to the information givers".
A written submission dated 04.09.2024 filed by the Respondent is taken on record, contents of the same are reproduced herein below:
Page 8 of 11"a) The Appellant- Shri Rahul Gupta has filed a Tax Evasion Petition against Shri Rajendra Mittal, Smt. Sulochana Mittal, Shri Mukesh Mittal, all resident of BW- 08, Vasundhara Kundla City, Ambikapur, Sarguja (C.G.)- 497001
b) The Appellant - Shri Rahul Gupta has filed application under RTI, Act, 2005 dated 15.03.2023 stating that the action taken report and outcome of the complaint filed by him is required as its refusal may prejudice the appellant is a criminal jurisprudence
c) The application filed by the appellant under RTI Act has been rejected by the CPIO vide his order u/s 7(1) dated 18.04.2023 on the ground that Investigation Directorate is exempted u/s 24 (1) read with the Schedule Second of RTI Act, 2005 for providing any information.
d) The Appellant further filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority stating the same as stated in RTI application. First Appellate Authority vide his order u/s 19(1) dated 04/05/2023 affirmed the order of CPIO and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant.
Submission before the Hon'ble Information Commissioner:
i) The Tax evasion petition filed by the applicant has been categorized as 'D'.
ii) As per section 24 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 states that the provisions of the Act would not be applicable to Intelligence and Security Organization as specified in the Second schedule. Vide Notification No. G.S.R 235 (E) dated 27/03/2008 published in the Gazette of India, The RTI Act is not applicable in respect of office of Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) under Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005.
The appellant in his Appeal as well as in his Tax evasion petition stated that "Section 498A, 420 and 120B of the Criminal Procedure Act 1973 and section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is attracted and its refusal may prejudice the appellant is a criminal jurisprudence. The issue raised by Appellant in TEP does not fall within the exceptional clause under section 24 of RTI Act, 2005 ."
Respondent while reiterating the contents of his written submission apprised the Commission that reply along with broad outcome of TEP i.e. categorization of subject TEP under category 'D' has already been informed to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, finds no scope of any relief and agrees with the initial reply of CPIO that the Respondent Public Authority Page 9 of 11 is an exempt organization as per Second Schedule of Section 24 of the RTI Act. Further, the material on record does not suggest any allegation of corruption or human rights violation in the matter, for which reason, the Commission finds no reason to invoke the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act to allow the disclosure of information, if any. For the sake of clarity, the relevant provision of Section 24(1) is reproduced as under:
"24. Act not to apply to certain organizations.--
(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:..."
Nonetheless, a detailed clarification given by the Respondent through his written submission dated 04.09.2024 which is treated as revised reply, despite being an exempt organization is self- explanatory.
However, in the spirit of the RTI Act, the Respondent is directed to provide a copy of his written submission dated 04.09.2024 along with enclosure to the Appellant within one week from the date of receipt of this order.
No further Intervention of the Commission is warranted in this matter.
The appeal is 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 Page 10 of 11 Copy To:
The FAA, O/o Director General of Income Tax (Inv.), Bhopal, Aayakar Bhawan (Annexe), Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal, MP - 462011.Page 11 of 11
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)