Central Information Commission
Radha Raman Tripathy vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 6 May, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos: CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639099; CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639102;
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626534 and CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626538
RADHA RAMAN TRIPATHY ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Income Tax Officer, Ward-1,
Ayakar Bhavan, Station Road,
Warangal - 506002
CPIO,
Office of the Addl.
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Deepti Towers, Kakinada. Range,
Main road, Kakinada - 533003
CPIO,
Income Tax Officer, Ward-1,
Aayakar Bhavan, Sundaraya
Colony, Nalgonda - 508002
CPIO
Office of the Addl.
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Range-3, Ayakar Bhavan, Daba
Gardens, Visakhapatnam - 530020
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639099; CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639102;
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626534 and CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626538 Page 1 of 13
CPIO
Dy, Commissioner of Income Tax
Circle-1, Rajahmahendravaram
Ayakar Bhavan, Veerabhadrapuram,
Rajamahendravaram 5033105 ...... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 22.04.2026
Date of Decision : 06.05.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Complaints are clubbed together as the Complainant as
well as the Respondent are same and the subject-matter is similar in nature
and hence are being disposed of through a common order.
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639099
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 20.09.2022
CPIO replied on : 31.01.2025
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09.08.2023
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN- AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639099; CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639102;CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626534 and CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626538 Page 2 of 13
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default. No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd-3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT.
Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax was recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31-03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639102 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 20.09.2022 CPIO replied on : 07.05.2025 First appeal filed on : Not on record First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09.08.2023
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639099; CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639102;
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626534 and CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626538 Page 3 of 13Information sought:
3. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN- AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default. No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd-3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT.
Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-*******7162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-*******7173.
Unfortunately, no refund has been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax was due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is a unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax was recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31-03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639099; CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639102;
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626534 and CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626538 Page 4 of 134. Not having received any reply from the CPIO within the stipulated time period, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
5. During the pendency of the Complaint before the CIC, the the CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 07.05.2025 stating as under:
"I am to refer to your Request for Information under RTI Act 2005, received vide letter dated 20/09/2022 and to say that There are no such cases in respect of this office."
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626534 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 20.09.2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 30.05.2023 Information sought:
6. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN- AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639099; CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639102;CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626534 and CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626538 Page 5 of 13
Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default. No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd-3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT.
Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-*******7162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-*******7173.
Unfortunately, no refund has been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax was due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is a unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax was recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31-03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
7. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626538 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 20.09.2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 30.05.2023
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639099; CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639102;
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626534 and CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626538 Page 6 of 13Information sought:
8. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN- AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.
Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs. One Crore from PAHH, Mr. Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default. No tax was due from the following persons.
1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.
2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd-3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT.
Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.
Unfortunately, no refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.
Point to be noted is that no tax was due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.
Kindly provide me the following information:
1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31-03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639099; CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639102;
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626534 and CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626538 Page 7 of 139. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent despite notice.
Respondent: 1. Shri G. Chakradhari, CPIO/Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Warangal; 2. Shri N. Kalyan Chakraborty, CPIO & DCIT, Kakinada; and 3. Shri Prasad, Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Nalgonda, and 4. Shri C.N.V. Aadinarayana, Dy. Commission of Income Tax/CPIO, Rajamundry appeared through video conference.
10. Proof of having served copies of Complaints on Respondent while filing the same in CIC are not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non- service. Thus, Regulation No. 10 of the Central Information Commission Management Regulations 2007 has not been complied with by the Appellant.
11. Shri G. Chakradhari, CPIO who appeared in case file No. CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639099 submitted that he had filed written submissions dated nil disclosing the relevant facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
"It is submitted that the application of Sri K.K. Tripathy was received through online RTI portal on 20.09.2022 and subsequently on 19.12.2024. The applicant of the applicant was rejected u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and the same was intimated to the assessee through online portal on 31.01.2025. However, the applicant filed compliant before the Chief Information Commissioner, New Delhi, on 09/08/2023, with a prayer to fine/penalize the CPIO/to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the CPIO.
In this regard, it is submitted the delay in furnishing the reply to the applicant was not an intentional and the same was due to the technical glitches in the RTI portal. Soon after the receipt of second application on 19.12.2024, the same was replied by rejecting the same as per the provisions u/s 8(1)(j) of the ATI Act, 2005 on 31.01.2025. Hence, it is CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639099; CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639102;CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626534 and CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626538 Page 8 of 13
requested to condone the delay in furnishing the reply to the applicant with reference to his first application which was filed on 20.09.2022."
12. Further, the Respondent has provided a revised reply to the Complainant in the above file and copy of the same is marked to the CIC, contents of the same are reproduced as under:
"Shri Radha Raman Tripathy, the applicant has sought information under RTI Act vide application cited above seeking certain details i.e. Number of assessees who were not an assessee in default but tax was recovered from their bank account during the period from 01.04.2008 to 31,03.2010, in connection with extortion of money by MR. VR Sonbhadra. In this regard, it is to state that the information sought for by the applicant is NIL in respect of this office as no tax was recovered in respect of the assessees who are not in default."
13. Shri N. Kalyan Chakraborty, CPIO & DCIT, Kakinada who appeared in case File No. CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639102 inter alia has filed a written submission dated 08.04.2026 stating as under:
"In this connection, it is humbly submitted that the said RTI was already disposed off by this office on 07.05.2025, with a remark - There are no such cases in respect of this office.
3. On receipt of the hearing notice, the Appellant/Complainant is once again informed today, i.e. on 08.04.2026, through mail, by attaching the copies of relevant correspondence and disposal remarks.
4. A copy of the communication sent to the Appellant/Complainant on 08.04.2026, along with relevant correspondence/disposal remarks is attached herewith for kind perusal of Hon'ble Commission.
5. Since the information was already provided to the Appellant/Complainant and it is once again informed him, the same may please be considered by the Hon'ble Commission, during the hearing.
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639099; CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639102;CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626534 and CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626538 Page 9 of 13
14. Shri Prasad, Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Nalgonda who appeared in case file No. CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626534 submitted that he has filed a written submission dated 22.04.2026 explaining facts of the case stating as under:
"At the outset, it is respectfully submitted that the RTI application dated 20.09.2022 pertains to the period during which the undersigned was not holding charge as the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO). The application relates to the tenure of the then CPIO and therefore the delay in furnishing reply occurred during the period prior to assumption of charge by the undersigned.
It is further respectfully submitted that during the relevant period there were administrative and technical constraints relating to access to the RTI online portal, including issues relating to availability of login credentials/username access and transition of charge between officers, which resulted in non- availability of effective access to the RTI portal for timely processing of the RTI application.
It is also submitted that the RTI application pertained to earlier records and required verification of legacy documents maintained in the office. Due to change of charge and handling of records pertaining to earlier period, the RTI application could not be processed within the prescribed time limit. However, immediately upon receipt of notice from the Hon'ble Central Information Commission, the matter was examined and this office furnished reply to the RTI applicant vide letter dated 17.04.2026 to the extent information available on record.
It is respectfully submitted that the delay in furnishing the reply was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to the administrative circumstances explained above. There was no mala fide intention in the matter. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the undersigned respectfully submits that there was no mala fide intention in the matter and requests that the same may kindly be considered sympathetically."
15. Shri C.N.V. Aadinarayana, Dy. Commission of Income Tax/CPIO, Rajamundry, who appeared in case File No. CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626538 vide letter dated 20.04.2026 submitted to the Commission as under:
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639099; CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639102;CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626534 and CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626538 Page 10 of 13
"In this connection, it is humbly submitted that the reply was furnished to the applicant immediately within one month from date of receipt of application. But, the acknowledgement of reply could not be traced out. However, another reply was furnished to the applicant on 12/06/2024 and screenshot of the website showing reply is submitted for kind perusal of Hon'ble Commissioner.
Decision
16. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, observed that the Complainant did not appear during the hearing despite due notice, nor has any written submission been placed on record to contest the submissions of the Respondents. The matters are therefore decided on the basis of available records and the submissions made by the Respondents Authorities.
17. The Commission notes that in response to the RTI applications, the Respondents have stated that the information sought by the Complainant is not available in their records and have accordingly informed that there are no such cases or that the information is "NIL". In one of the cases, the information was also denied under the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission finds that the RTI Act mandates disclosure only of such information that is available and existing on record with the public authority. The Respondents having categorically stated that no such information is maintained, and in the absence of any material to the contrary, the Commission finds no reason to disbelieve their submissions.
18. With regard to the delay in furnishing replies, the Respondents have explained that the same occurred due to technical and administrative constraints, including issues relating to the RTI portal and change of charge. The Commission does not find any mala fide intention or deliberate denial of information on the part of the Respondents.
19. The Commission further notes that the present matters have been filed as Complaints under Section 18 of the RTI Act. It is well settled that the scope of proceedings under Section 18 is limited to examining violations such as mala fide denial, unreasonable delay, or obstruction in furnishing information. The CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639099; CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639102;
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626534 and CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626538 Page 11 of 13Commission cannot, in complaint proceedings, direct disclosure of information or adjudicate upon the correctness of replies. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. vs. State of Manipur & Anr. (2011), which clearly delineates the distinction between proceedings under Sections 18 and 19 of the RTI Act.
20. The Commission also observes that the Complainant has neither availed the statutory remedy of filing a First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act nor established any mala fide intent or deliberate obstruction on the part of the Respondents so as to warrant action under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
21. Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 2500 cases of the same Complainant against same and different Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In this regard, it is also worth noting that 50 complaint cases including the present set of cases listed for today's hearing. The Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information in each of his RTI Applications to pressurize the Public Authority rather than actual interest in getting the information denied to him, if any. This intention of the Complainant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The Commission, like on several occasions in the past, again advises the Complainant to make judicious and sensible use of his rights under the Right to Information Act in future.
22. The Respondent during the hearing submitted that the Complainant has not served a copy of the instant complaints upon the Respondent. The Commission would like to remind the Complainant of the fact that serving a copy of documents (including Complaint, Second Appeal and Written submissions) to the opposite party is crucial for fairness, transparency, and due process in legal proceedings and also in the interest of expeditious response from the concerned Public Authority. It further reinforces the bona fide interest of the Appellant/Complainant in obtaining the information at the earliest possible. The requirement of advanced service is in accordance with CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639099; CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639102;
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626534 and CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626538 Page 12 of 13the audi alteram partem requirement. It further ensures that the opposite party is aware of the facts of filing a case in CIC, arguments of the Complainant and reason for discontentment. It has been the experience that where the Complainant had served advance copy of the Second Appeal/Complaint on the opposite party, the Respondent Public Authority has tried proactively to resolve the case by either providing clarity on the subject or by providing revised and updated reply/information to the Complainant before the matter reaches for the hearing. This ultimately results in faster delivery of information, thus leading to a more efficient and effective Appeal/Complaint disposal. It also reduces the time, energy and efforts of the Commission and Respondent Public Authority in early disposal. It is in his own interest for the Complainant to serve an advance copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on the Respondents.
23. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Commission finds no infirmity in the action of the Respondent Authorities. No case is made out for intervention of the Commission under the RTI Act, 2005.
The Complaints are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कु मार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूच ना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Sd/-
(S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639099; CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639102;
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626534 and CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626538 Page 13 of 13Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)