Central Information Commission
Y Akbar Ahmed vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 19 July, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCACH/A/2023/119747
Y Akbar Ahmed .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o Additional Commissioner of Income Tax,
Non Corporate Range - 11, Tower -2,
BSNL Building, No. 16, GREAMS
Road, Chennai - 600006. ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16.07.2024
Date of Decision : 19.07.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.10.2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 17.01.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 30.01.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 02.05.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.10.2022 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 11
"I am in receipt of:
a) 1 Summons under section 131 (1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated:
05.07.2019.
Issued by One Mr. SURESH PERIASAMY [Deputy Director of Income Tax (inv) Unit 1 (1) AIU, Chennai].
b) 2nd Summons under section 131 (1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated:
20.08.2019.
Issued by One Mr. K. S ILAYARAJA Į Deputy Director of Income Tax (inv) Unit 1 (1), Chennai].
c) 1 Notice dated: 07.01.2020, Issued by SUBRAMANIAN RAVISHANKAR [Income Tax officer, NON CORP WARD 11 (1) Chennai).
d) 2nd Notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated:
22.04.2021, issued by MR.PARTHASARATHY VEDAVALLI, NON CORP WARD 11 (1) Chennai, in Violation to the DICTUM/RULE/LAW Laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the Case of Union of India vs Ashish Agarwal on 04.05.2022.
e) 3rd Notice under section 142 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 12.11.2021, issued by MR.PARTHASARATHY VEDAVALLI, NON CORP WARD 11 (1) Chennai], in Violation to the DICTUM/RULE/LAW Laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the Case of Union of India vs Ashish Agarwal ON 04.05.2022.
f) 4th Notice under section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated:
31.05.2022, issued by Ms. JAYALAKSHMI M IYER from NON CORP WARD 11 (1) Chennai), in Violation to the DICTUM/RULE/LAW Laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the Case of Union of India vs Ashish Agarwal ON 04.05.2022.
g) 5th Notice under section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated:
06.07.2022, issued by Ms.JAYALAKSHMI MIYER from NON CORP WARD 11 (1) Chennai), in Violation to the DICTUM/RULE/LAW Laid down by the Hon'ble Page 2 of 11 Supreme Court of india, in the Case of Union of India vs Ashish Agarwal on 04.05.2022.
h) 6th Notice under section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 27.07.2022, issued by Ms.JAYALAKSHMI M IYER from NON CORP WARD 11 (1) Chennai), in Violation to the DICTUM/RULE/LAW Laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the Case of Union of India vs Ashish Agarwal ON 04.05.2022.
i) 7th Notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 28.07.2022, issued by Ms.JAYALAKSHMI M IYER from NON CORP WARD 11 (1) Chennai), in Violation to the DICTUM/RULE/LAW Laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the Case of Union of India vs Ashish Agarwal ON 04.05.2022.
Further, I have responded/replied to all the above 9 Summons/Notices received from various income Tax authorities under various sections, invoked in an uneven and peculiar manner and ln violation to the well settled Rule/Dictum/Law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the Case of Union of India vs Ashish Agarwal on 04.05.2022, and the above-said income tax authorities even after I have informed them through my Communications dated :10.06.2022 and 09.07.2022 stating that, t was acting as a POWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT for the Property Owners who developed their properties, and whatever cash transactions had been made in my bank account in the year 2013-14, was with respect to the properties of my PRINCIPALS. But the above said income Tax authorities blindly in one single direction are targeting me for no use, and waste of their official time, and they have not taken any steps all these years against my PRINCIPALS to find out the Truth of the money Transactions which reflect in my Bank Account, since I have submitted all the Copies of Agreements and Payment details made to the Builders of the said properties, and the copies of My Power of Attorney and other records to the said Ms. JAYALAKSHMI M IYER of NON CORP WARD 11 (1) Chennai. But still, it is not yielding any good results because of the Abuse and Misuse of Power by the above-said authorities.
ABUSE OF POWER:
It is settled law that if a public functionary acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise Page 3 of 11 of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. Harassment by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible which causes more serious injury to society. ln modern society no authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary.
1. Please provide me with detailed information, Maintained as part of Record by the Income Tax Department, Regarding the Notices/Summons issued by the income Tax officers to My Principals/Owners of the Properties Between 05.07.2019 to 28.07.2022, regarding which payment/money transactions have been made in my Bank Account in the years 2013-14, and it was also informed by me to the said Ms. JAYALAKSHMI M IYER of NON CORP WARD 11 (1) Chennai, vide my Communications dated: 10.06.2022 and 09.07.2022 ?
2. Please provide me with detailed information, Maintained as part of Record by the Income Tax Department, regarding NO NOTICES/SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICERS TO MY PRINCIPALS/OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES, BETWEEN 05.07.2019 TO TILL DATE, regarding which payment/money transactions have been made in my Bank Account in the years 2013-14, and it was also informed by me to the said Ms. JAYALAKSHMI M IYER of NON CORP WARD 11 (1) Chennai, vide my Communications dated: 10.06.2022 and 09.07.2022 ?
[Since all the above-said 9 Notices/Summons have been issued to me only by the above-said income TAX AUTHORITIES, that too in violation to the DICTUM/RULE/LAW Laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the Case of Union of India vs Ashish Agarwal ON 04.05.2022?"
Having not received any response form the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.01.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 30.01.2023, held as under:
"2. However, the CPIO had not furnished the requisite information within 30 days of receipt of the RTI application. Hence, the appellant has now preferred an appeal before this office.
3. On verification, it is seen that the CPIO has indeed failed to provide the requisite information within 30 days of receipt of the request and the application is deemed to have been refused by the CPIO as defined in sec 7(2) of the RTI Act. Hence, the CPIO is hereby directed to take up the appellant's request for information and decide the matter immediately in Page 4 of 11 accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. The CPIO is further directed to submit a compliance report to this office in this regard."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Ms. Jayalakshmi M Iyer, ITO/CPIO, Non-Corporate Ward 11(1), Chennai present through video-conference.
A written submission dated 09.07.2024 filed by the Respondent is taken on record. Respondent invited attention of the Commission towards the contents of her submission wherein she inter alia explained as under -
"1. The RTI petition dated 04.10.2022, addressed to DCIT(HQ) (Admin), O/o., Chief Commissioner of Income tax, Chennai-1, was sent to this office through proper channel on 19.10.2022 and it was requested in this petition to provide detailed information, maintained as part of the record by the Income Tax Department, regarding the Notices/Summons issued by the Income Tax officers between 05.07.2019 to 28.07.2022 regarding the transactions made by the appellant in his bank account for the year 2013-14. The contents of this RTI petition dated 04.10.2022 were the same as the previous RTI petition dated 02.08.2022 on same identical grounds. It was requested (to provide detailed information maintained by the Income Tax Department in compliance to laws laid down by Hon'ble SC in the case of Union of India Vs Ashish Agarwal dated 04.05.2022) (Copy enclosed). For this RTI Petition dated 02.08.2022, a detailed order with adequate reply under RTI Act was passed on 28.09.2022 containing 19 pages giving the complete details of the procedures followed as per Income Tax Act, 1961 for the queries raised by the petitioner point-wise so that he will get an explanation and a clear idea of how the cases are reopened for assessment quoting the reasons for reopening of the assessment from section 147 to 149 and have explained about the time limits for selecting his case for reopening for the AY 2013-14 in detail as per the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Ashish Agarwal which is self-
explanatory. Since, again one more petition dated 04.10.2022 was again received in this office on the same identical points, asking for the procedure maintained by our office. The reply given on 28.09.2022 will be same for this petition also.
Page 5 of 11Moreover, I was on Commuted leave for the period 03.10.2022 to 04.11.2022 during that period when this office received the RTI petition dated 04.10.2022.
2. So far, this office has received so many RTI petitions from Shri Y. Akbar Ahmed on various dates and one can note the same contents repeated in all the RTI petitions asking for providing the detailed information, maintained as part of record by the Income Tax Department, in Compliance to the DICTUM/RULE/LAW laid down by the Hon'ble SC of India, in the case of UOI Vs Ashish Agarwal on 04.05.22 regarding the Maintainability of the mentioned Summons/Notices 9 (Nos) issued by the various Income Tax officials under the various sections of the Income Tax Act 1961.It was time and again written by the petitioner that our officials/officers were blatantly misusing the law and have sent various summons, notices against the petitioner.
3. Since the Appellant has been given a detailed reply on the same identical issues raised by him date wise and since this office has followed the Income Tax Act 1961 properly and has reopened his case u/s 148, there is no fact hidden in any of the reply to his RTI petition, but still he is not understanding the facts that has reopened his case for the AY 2013-14. He is still not accepting the reopening of his case and still need relief for reopening his case.
4. The copies of the RTI Order by our office on 29/08/2022 and the Assessment Order dated 31/05/2022 are enclosed here for your ready reference. On going through this order which are self-explanatory, one will get a clear idea that this office has followed diligently the Income Tax Act 1961 rules and regulations and has framed the Assessment Order against the petitioner.
5. The petitioner has filed 6 number of RTI petitions on the same issue over the last two years. All the petitions have in one or other way is asking for the same information repeatedly. The notices issued by the authorities and the basis of such notices are in the possession of the petitioner. The fact of the case is also in possession of the petitioner. The powers and functions of the Income Tax Authorities emanates from the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is a public document. Any queries on such points does not warrant any specific answers.
6. On simple perusal of the various RTI petitions submitted by the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner has been grossly misusing the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 and wasting the time of the public authorities in repeatedly filing petitions on the same issue.
7. Further, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the Income Tax proceedings, the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for adequate mechanism to get the grievance addressed through various appellate bodies.
Page 6 of 118. Repeatedly filing RTI petitions and seeking the same information in different format is only trying to circumvent the real issue and waste the time of public authorities. In view of the above, the Hon'ble Commissioner is kindly requested to dispose the appeal as non- maintainable."
Respondent further apprised the genesis of this case was that the Appellant was engaged in the real estate business and was having unauthorized cash deposits of around 61 lakhs (INR) in the assessment year 2012-13 due to which his case was reopened for assessment and assessment notice/summons were issued to him as per the procedures of Income Tax Act. Moreover, his PAN was unregistered due to which action was taken against him.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records, finds no infirmity in the reply of the Respondent, as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, the Appellant neither appeared during the hearing to controvert the submissions of the Respondent nor filed any written submissions to agitate the matter further.
Further, the Commission would like to draw attention of the parties towards a judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a case titled Central Public Information Officer vs. Kailash Chandra Moondra, W.P.(C) 340/2023 & CM APPL. 1348/2023, wherein it was categorically held that the Right to Information Act, 2005 and Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deal with disclosure of information. While the Right to Information Act is a general law concerning the disclosure of information by the public authorities, Section 138 of the Income Tax Act is a special legislation dealing with disclosure of information concerning the assesses. The relevant extract of the aforesaid order is reproduced hereinbelow:
"...15. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, Section 138 (1)(b) and Section 138 (2) of the IT Act which lays down a specific procedure relating to disclosure of information relating to a third party under the IT Act would override Section 22 of the RTI Act. The information sought for by the Respondent herein is clearly covered by Section 138(1)(b) of the IT Act. The satisfaction of Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is, therefore, necessary before such Page 7 of 11 information can be divulged. That satisfaction cannot be abrogated to any other authority under a general Act for divulging the information sought for.
16. The said judgment has been followed by the Apex Court in Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 2007 SCC OnLine CIC 315.
17. In Chief Information Commr. v. High Court of Gujarat, (2020) 4 SCC 702, when an issue was raised over furnishing of information of certified copies obtained from the High Court of Gujarat by invoking the provisions of the RTI Act, the Apex Court, while resorting to the Gujarat High Court Rules, has observed as under:
"35. The non obstante clause of the RTI Act does not mean an implied repeal of the High Court Rules and orders framed under Article 225 of the Constitution of India; but only has an overriding effect in case of inconsistency. A special enactment or rule cannot be held to be overridden by a later general enactment simply because the latter opens up with a non obstante clause, unless there is clear inconsistency between the two legislations. In this regard, we may usefully refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka [R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 1 SCC 335: 1992 SCC (L&S) 286] wherein, the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC pp. 356-57, para
38).
"38. In Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India [Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 127: 1984 SCC (L&S) 355], Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as his Lordship then was) observed thus: (SCC p. 153, para
38).
"38. ... As mentioned hereinbefore if the Scheme was held to be valid, then the question what the general law is and what is the special law and which law in case of conflict would prevail would have arisen and that would have necessitated the application of the principle "generalia specialibus non derogant". The general rule to be followed in case of conflict between the two statutes is that the later abrogates the earlier Page 8 of 11 one. In other words, a prior special law would yield to a later general law, if either of the two following conditions is satisfied:
"(i) The two are inconsistent with each other.
(ii) There is some express reference in the later to the earlier enactment."
If either of these two conditions is fulfilled, the later law, even though general, would prevail.'"
(emphasis supplied)
18. Applying the said analogy to the facts of the present case, Section 138(1)(b) of the IT Act which specifically states that information relating to an assessee can only be supplied subject to the satisfaction of Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, would prevail over Section 22 of the RTI Act.
19. The issue raised herein has been settled by a Bench of three Member Bench of the CIC which, in the opinion of this Court, is binding on the Bench which has passed the impugned order. A Bench of three Commissioners of the CIC in G.R. Rawal v. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), 2008 SCC OnLine CIC 1008, while considering the very same issue has observed as under:
"15. Thus, both the Right to Information Act, 2005 and Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deal with disclosure of information. While Right to Information Act is a general law concerning the disclosure of information by the public authorities, Section 138 of the Income Tax Act is a special legislation dealing with disclosure of information concerning the assesses. This Commission in "Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. ITAT, decided on 18th September 2007 decided by a Full Bench, has dealt with the issue of applicability of special law to the exclusion of the general law. The Commission has relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in "Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla -- AIR 2002 SC 2322". The following two paragraphs from the said decision of the Commission are pertinent and quoted below:
37. A special enactment or Rule, therefore, cannot be held to be overridden by a later general enactment or simply because the latter Page 9 of 11 opens up with a nonobstante clause unless there is clear inconsistency between the two legislations -- one which is later in order of time and the other which is a special enactment. This issue came again for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla -- AIR 2002 SC 2322 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted with approval the Broom's Legal Maxim in reference to two Latin Maxims in the following words:
"It is then, an elementary Rule that an earlier Act must give place to a later, if the two cannot be reconciled - lex posterior derogate priori - non est novum ut priores leges ad posteriors trahantur (Emphasis supplied) - and one Act may repeal another by express words or by implication; for it is enough if there be words which by necessary implication repeal it. But repeal by implication is never to be favoured, and must not be imputed to the legislature without necessity, or strong reason, to be shown by the party imputing it. It is only effected where the provisions of the later enactment are so inconsistent with, or repugnant to, those of the earlier that the two cannot stand together2; unless the two Acts are so plainly repugnant to each other that effect cannot be given to both at the same time a repeal cannot be implied; and special Acts are not repealed by general Acts unless there be some express reference to the previous legislation, or a necessary inconsistency in the two Acts standing together, which prevents the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant (Emphasis supplied) from being applied. For where there are general words in a later Act capable of reasonable application without being extended to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, then, in the absence of an indication of a particular intention to that effect, the presumption is that the general words were not intended to repeal the earlier and special legislation, or to take away a particular privilege of a particular class of persons."
38. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Apex Court also cited with approval an earlier decision in Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur v. Thakur Manmohan Dey-MANU/SC/0202/1966, in which it was indicated that an earlier special law cannot be held to have been Page 10 of 11 abrogated by mere implication. That being so, the argument regarding implied repeal has to be rejected for both the reasons set out above."
Propriety demanded that the CIC ought to have followed the opinion of the larger Bench, which is binding on it."
In view of the above observations, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in this matter.
Nonetheless, in the spirit of the RTI Act, respondent is directed to provide a copy of her written submission along with enclosures free of cost to the Appellant within one week of the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, O/o Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Range - 11, Tower -2, BSNL Building, No. 16, GREAMS Road, Chennai -600006.Page 11 of 11
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)