Central Information Commission
Radha Raman Tripathy vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 26 June, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos. : CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623623, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626954,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626955, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626958,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626959, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626964,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626971, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626972,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626973, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623599,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623611, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623619,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623627, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623660,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623661, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624255,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624840, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624841,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624853, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624863,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624864, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625472,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625491, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625492,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625493, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625496,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625497, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625498,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625499, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625502,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625505, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625506,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625507, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625663,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625664, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625666,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625667, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625668,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625673, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625675,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626568, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626966,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626967, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626969,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626970, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/633100,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/633103, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/633106,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/633107, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/633116,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/633119, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/634428,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/634431, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/634432,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/634436, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/638690,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/638693, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/638697,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/638704, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/638705,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/638706, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/638710,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/638712, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/638714,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/639343, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/639345,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/639348, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/639349,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/634430, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/639350,
Page 1 of 99
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/639357, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/639358,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/639361, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/639363,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/639367, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624842,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626977, CIC/CCITM/C/2023/630214,
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623624. (Total 79 cases)
RADHA RAMAN TRPATHY ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
O/o the Pr. Chief Commissioner
of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan,
M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020
CPIO
O/o the Deputy Commissioner of
Income Tax, Pratistha Bhawan,
Near Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.
Road, Mumbai - 400 020 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 14.06.2024
Date of Decision : 25.06.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned complaints are clubbed together as the Complainant
and the Respondent Public Authority are common and subject-matter is
similar in nature and hence are being heard together and disposed of
through a common order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 29.05.2022, 31.05.2022, ,01.06.2022,
06.10.2022, 20.09.2022, 22.09.2022,
05.06.2024, 08.10.2020
CPIO replied on : 11.06.2024, 12.06.2024, 13.06.2024,
14.06.2024.
First appeal filed on : Not on record
Page 2 of 99
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 08.05.2023, 16.05.2023, 06.07.2023,
13.07.2023, 18.05.2023, 14.07.2023,
24.05.2023, 23.05.2023, 25.03.2023,
26.05.2023, 08.08.2023, 20.06.2023,
01.06.2023, 30.05.2023, 11.08.2023,
02.06.2023
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623623
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 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 (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2 .
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.Page 3 of 99
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626954 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised. This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.Page 4 of 99
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626955 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised. This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.Page 5 of 99
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH. Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand..
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626958 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.Page 6 of 99
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised. This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PАНН.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."Page 7 of 99
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626959 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised. This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PАНН.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.Page 8 of 99
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626964 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised. This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.Page 9 of 99
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAНН.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the retum for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the retum for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626971 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.Page 10 of 99
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised. This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PАНН.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the retum for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626972 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2022 seeking the following information:Page 11 of 99
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y 2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts. Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised. This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PАНН.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.Page 12 of 99
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626973 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised. This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PАНН.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.Page 13 of 99
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623599 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 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 (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.Page 14 of 99
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623611 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 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 (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."Page 15 of 99
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623619 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 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 (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623627 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 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 (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny Page 16 of 99 assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR. which will be disclosed now one by one..
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623660 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 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 (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.Page 17 of 99
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623661 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 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 (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Page 18 of 99 Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624255 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.05.2022 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 (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04.
Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.Page 19 of 99
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT office and not by the Assessing Officer itself for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624840 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 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 (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04.
Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.Page 20 of 99
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT office and not by the Assessing Officer itself for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624841 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 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 (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04.
Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.Page 21 of 99
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT office and not by the Assessing Officer itself for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624853 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 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 (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04.
Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT office and not by the Assessing Officer itself for the Page 22 of 99 Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624863 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 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 (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the AddI. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04.
Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT office and not by the Assessing Officer itself for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624864 Page 23 of 99 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 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 (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04.
Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT office and not by the Assessing Officer itself for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/625472 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 seeking the following information:Page 24 of 99
"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 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 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/CCITM/C/2023/625491 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 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.Page 25 of 99
owever, 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 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 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/CCITM/C/2023/625492 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 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.Page 26 of 99
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 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/CCITM/C/2023/625493 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 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.Page 27 of 99
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 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/CCITM/C/2023/625496 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 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.Page 28 of 99
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 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/CCITM/C/2023/625497 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 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 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.Page 29 of 99
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/CCITM/C/2023/625498 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 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 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 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/CCITM/C/2023/625499 Information sought:
Page 30 of 99The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 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 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 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/CCITM/C/2023/625502 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 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 Page 31 of 99 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 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 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/CCITM/C/2023/625505 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 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.Page 32 of 99
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 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/CCITM/C/2023/625506 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 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.Page 33 of 99
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 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/CCITM/C/2023/625507 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 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.Page 34 of 99
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 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/CCITM/C/2023/625663 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 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 were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.Page 35 of 99
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/CCITM/C/2023/625664 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 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 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 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/CCITM/C/2023/625666 Page 36 of 99 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 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 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 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/CCITM/C/2023/625667 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 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 Page 37 of 99 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 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 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/CCITM/C/2023/625668 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 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.Page 38 of 99
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 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/CCITM/C/2023/625673 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 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.Page 39 of 99
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 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/CCITM/C/2023/625675 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 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.Page 40 of 99
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 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/CCITM/C/2023/626568 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 22.09.2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised. This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PАНН.Page 41 of 99
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626966 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.Page 42 of 99
Sri A.S Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised. This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH. The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAНН.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626967 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness ( In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept Page 43 of 99 increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.Page 44 of 99
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626969 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness ( In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH.
Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.Page 45 of 99
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626970 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness ( In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH.
Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.Page 46 of 99
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground. The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/633100 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 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 (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.Page 47 of 99
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reftected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/633103 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 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 (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A R. which will be disclosed now one by one.Page 48 of 99
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/633106 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 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 (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2.Page 49 of 99
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/633107 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 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 (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/633116 Page 50 of 99 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 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 (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/633119 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 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 (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny Page 51 of 99 on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/634428 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.05.2022 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 (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.Page 52 of 99
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04.
Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT office and not by the Assessing Officer itself for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/634431 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.05.2022 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 (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.Page 53 of 99
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04.
Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT office and not by the Assessing Officer itself for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/634432 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 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 (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04.Page 54 of 99
Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT office and not by the Assessing Officer itself for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/634436 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.05.2022 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 (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reffected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04.Page 55 of 99
Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT office and not by the Assessing Officer itself for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/638690 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 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.Page 56 of 99
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 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/CCITM/C/2023/638693 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 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 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.Page 57 of 99
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/CCITM/C/2023/638697 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 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 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 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/CCITM/C/2023/638704 Information sought:
Page 58 of 99The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 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 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 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/CCITM/C/2023/638705 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 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 Page 59 of 99 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 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 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/CCITM/C/2023/638706 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 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.Page 60 of 99
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 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/CCITM/C/2023/638710 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 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.Page 61 of 99
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 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/CCITM/C/2023/638712 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 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.Page 62 of 99
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 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/CCITM/C/2023/638714 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 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 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.Page 63 of 99
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/CCITM/C/2023/639343 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness ( In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH.
Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.Page 64 of 99
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/639345 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness ( In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH.
Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of IncomeTax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.Page 65 of 99
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/639348 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness ( In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH.Page 66 of 99
Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground. The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.Page 67 of 99
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/639349 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness ( In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH.
Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.Page 68 of 99
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/639350 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness ( In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH.
Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.Page 69 of 99
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/634430 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.05.2022 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 (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour. This case was selected for scrutiny Page 70 of 99 on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the AddI. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04.
Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT office and not by the Assessing Officer itself for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/639357 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness ( In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH.Page 71 of 99
Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground. The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.Page 72 of 99
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/639358 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness ( In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH.
Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.Page 73 of 99
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/639361 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness ( In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH.
Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.Page 74 of 99
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/639363 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept Page 75 of 99 increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised. This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAНН. Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."Page 76 of 99
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/639367 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness (In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny. Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised. This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PАНН.
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time Page 77 of 99 of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/624842 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 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 (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04.
Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.Page 78 of 99
It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT office and not by the Assessing Officer itself for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626977 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"Paramji Alias His Holiness ( In short PAHH) opened one Savings Account in State Bank of India, Chas on 16/03/2005. Obviously ,PAHH was required to disclose this account in his ITR for the AY 2005-06. ITR for the A.Y.2003-04 was submitted declaring true and correct income by PAHH. Wealth of PAHH kept increasing as usual which could not be digested by Officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi after seeing the Balance Sheet of His Holiness.
A deep rooted conspiracy was plotted by the officers posted at Bokaro, Hazaribagh and Ranchi to implicate PAHH and to extort money from His Holiness which is substantiated from the following facts.
Enclosed is the copy of proposal sent by Sri A.S.Xess, the DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro having jurisdiction over the case of PAHH for selection of Income Tax Assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2003-04 for scrutiny.
Sri A.S.Xess raised only one point as ground for selection of the case for scrutiny but in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, three points were raised . This was a deep rooted conspiracy against PAHH.
The copy of Note Sheet written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, wherein sanction for scrutiny was accorded by the CCIT on entirely different ground.
The A.O. in his proposal did not mention any specific reason or ground for which this case could have been selected for scrutiny. The A.O. has simply incorporated the statistical data on the basis of ITR filed by PAHH.Page 79 of 99
Out of three points raised in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi, two of them were not found sufficient for taking the case for scrutiny. The third ground on which the case was selected for scrutiny was false and concocted.
The only ground on which the selection for scrutiny was made, was for not disclosing the Bank Account maintained in the State Bank of India, Chas in the District of Bokaro, Jharkhand.
The said Bank Account which became the basis for selection of the case for scrutiny was opened on 16 March, 2005, hence it was not disclosed at the time of filing of the return for the Assessment Year 2003-04. This bank account was duly disclosed in the return for the respective Assessment Year 2005-06.
Thus the selection was made on bogus and false ground and just to implicate PAHH by the then Officers of the Income Tax Department under deep rooted conspiracy.
Kindly provide me the following information.
1. Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/630214 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 08.10.2020 seeking the following information:
"Recently a case has been registered by Hon. Lokpal of India on my complaints for issue of bogus and illegal refunds to Officers of Bokaro Steel Plant for the AYs 2009-10 to 2016-17, as accepted by CCIT, Ranchi. This refund arose due to non inclusion of perks into salary income the said officers. Bokaro Steel Plant failed to upload the perks amount on 26 AS, whereas tax was deducted on both amounts.
Assessing Officers of Bokaro were timely informed by me for issuing notices u/s 147 of the IT Act for re-assessment and recovery of illegal refunds but they failed to do so as they shared the amount 50-50 from the officers to whom such bogus refunds were issued. This issue was raised by me several times but no action was taken either by Mr. PK Mondal, JCIT, Mr. SK Roy, JCIT, Mr. BK Singh, DCIT, Mr. TK Dutta, PCIT(Now in jail, arrested by CBI) and Mr. RB Naik, PCIT, Page 80 of 99 Hazaribagh as such several thousand cases became time barred and huge revenue was lost.
Out of more than 12000 cases of bogus refund amounting to more than 100 crores of rupees, action in only 345 cases were taken as accepted by CCIT, Ranchi.
Similar practice is being followed at many places like Durgapur, Bhilai, Rourkela Steel Plant,Vizag Steel Plant and other PSUs like CCL, BCCL, WCL etc. all over the country.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all PCCIT Charges.
1. Total Number of Assessing Officers having jurisdiction of Salary Cases of Public Sector Undertakings (All PCCIT charge wise).
2. Total number of cases in which perks were not added to the salary income of the respective assessees for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to Α.Υ.2016-17.
3. Total amount of refund issued without adding Perks income in their ITRs for the period as at sl.2 above. (Year wise)
4. Total amount recovered out of bogus refund issued as at sl.3 Above."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/623624 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 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 (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.
It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.
Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A R. which will be disclosed now one by one.Page 81 of 99
Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.
It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2.
Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Mumbai.
1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Shubhendu Sinha, ITO & CPIO, Shri L A Jamabandhu, DCIT & CPIO, Shri Mahesh Israni, ITO & CPIO, Shri Sujeet Kumar, ITO & CPIO, Shri Praveen Kumar, ITO & CPIO, Shri Puneet Daga, Dy. Commissioner, Shri Rohit Kumar, ITO & CPIO, Shri Pritam Nair, ITO & CPIO, Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Additional Commissioner, Ms. Preeti Hooda, PCIT, Ms. Bidisha, CPIO, Shri Arun Bende, Asstt. Commissioner & CPIO, Shri Aditya Rai, Joint Commissioner present through Video-Conference.
The Complainant did not participate in the hearing despite notice.
Cases have been listed together as stated in the opening statement of this order. The Complainant may note that the timing indicated in the cause list is primarily for the purpose of informing the parties as also the NIC studio for booking the same. Hearings are done every day till all cases are heard. The break in hearing can be taken with mutual convenience. The Complainant is always welcome to witness disposal of cases after duly hearing the parties either personally or through authorized representative. Instead of calling a senior citizen like him frequently for the bunch of cases filed by him as also Page 82 of 99 with a view not to disrupt the functioning of Respondent CPIO, the cases are heard together for convenience of the parties involved. All cases are only complaint cases in which first appeals are not filed by the Complainant. In complaint cases, the Commission has to only adjudicate whether information was denied/delayed mala fidely.
Detailed written submissions of the CPIOs stating complete facts of the case in the above-mentioned matters are taken on record. Since, the contents/subject-matter of all the written submissions received by the Commission are more or less similar in nature because the queries raised in the above-mentioned RTI applications are based on three subject-matters which is being reproduced herein:
"Number of cases selected for scrutiny for the AY 2003-04 for not disclosing Bank Accounts opened by the Assessee in FY 2004-05(Liable to disclose in the ITR of AY 2005-06) in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge."
"Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."
"1. Total Number of Assessing Officers having jurisdiction of Salary Cases of Public Sector Undertakings (All PCCIT charge wise).
2. Total number of cases in which perks were not added to the salary income of the respective assessees for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to Α.Υ.2016-17.
3. Total amount of refund issued without adding Perks income in their ITRs for the period as at sl.2 above. (Year wise)
4. Total amount recovered out of bogus refund issued as at sl.3 Above."
The Complainant has filed identical RTI applications based on above- mentioned subject-matters even without changing the time-period of the information sought.
Therefore, in order to avoid multiplicity of written submissions in the matter, the relevant extracts of some of the written submissions are reproduced hereinbelow:
Page 83 of 99Written Submission 1:
"2. The notice of hearing in the above cases was received on 06.06.2024. As per the notice the case was fixed for hearing on 14.06.2024 to 11.33 AM to 3.21PM.
3. In all the cases, Pr. CCIT (CCA), Mumbai is not the CPIO who possesses the relevant information, hence the same was forwarded as per provision of Sec. 6(3) of the RTI ACT,2005. However, as the CPIO, O/o Pr. CCIT (CCA), Mumbai is shown as respondent CPIO, hence in compliance the undersigned submitting the submission before the Hon'ble CIC. The same is as under:
Brief Facts 3.1. In this case, notice of hearing has been received in 78 appeal from the Hon'ble CIC. Among those 78 appeal only 4 RTI has been filed before the CPIO, O/o Pr. CCIT(CCA), Mumbai the details of the same are as under:
Sl.No. Date of RTI Information Date of Transferred to First
sought Transfer appeal
U/s 6(3) filed
before
FAA,O/o
Pr. CCIT
(CCA),
Mumbai
1 29.05.2022 Number of 31.05.2022 DCIT (HQ) to -
scrutiny cases chief
in which first Commissioner
page of order of Income Tax,
sheet was not Mumbai 1 to 5
given to the and Chief
assessee for the Commissioner
Assessment of Income Tax
year 2003-04 in of Central
respect of all circle 1 & 2
Assessing Mumbai.
officers of
PCCIT, Charge
Mumbai, until
today.
2 01.06.2022 Number of 01.06.2022 DCIT(HQ) to -
Page 84 of 99
Scrutiny cases Chief
in which First Commissioner
page of order of Income Tax,
Sheet has been Mumbai 1 to 5
written in the and Chief
office of the Commissioner
CCIT Office and of Income Tax
not by the of Central
Assessing Circle 1 & 2,
Officer itself for Mumbai
the Assesment
year 2003- 04
in respect of all
Assessing
Officers of
PCCIT, Mumbai
Charge
06.10.2022 Number of 07.10.2022 DCIT(HQ) to -
Bank Accounts Chief
opened by the Commissioner
Assessee in FY of Income Tax,
2004-05(Liable Mumbai 1 to 5
to disclose in
the ITR of AY
2005-06) in
respect of all
Assessing
Officers of
PCCIT, Charge
Mumbai
20.09.2022 Number of 23.09.2022 DCIT(HQ) to -
Assesse who
were not an Chief
Assessee in Commissioner
default but tax of Income Tax,
were recovered Mumbai 1 to 5
from their bank
account during
the period
01.04.2008
from to
31.03.2010 in
Page 85 of 99
respect of all
Assessing
Officers of
PCCIT, Charge
Mumbai
From the above table it is clear that the RTI of the appellant was received in this office and same was forwarded, online through RTI MIS Portal, as per provision of Sec. 6(3) of the RTI ACT within the time limit prescribed in the RTI Act, 2005 to Others who were likely to possess the information sought in the RTI application (Copy enclosed).
3.2. The applicant has not filed any first appeal before FAA, O/o Pr. CCIT(CCA), Mumbai.
4. Submissions of the Public Authority before the Hon'ble CIC
(a) Under the public authority of Pr. CCIT (CCA) as on date there is more than 14 CCIT and 40 Pr. CIT under whom there is various jurisdictional Officers which also more than 240. The total number of PAN handled by the jurisdictional Officer is more than 1.71 Cr. All the jurisdictional Officers are CPIO. Some rights/power has been given to the Jurisdictional Officer for the working of the department. The information can only be provided by the jurisdictional Officer under whom the PAN/jurisdiction lies. Further the appellant sought information in respect of various person which is not possessed by any particular CPIO hence the same was forwarded to all the jurisdictional CCIT for onward transmission as per provision of Sec. 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. Thus, the CPIO has complied as per provisions of RTI Act, 2005.
(b) Appellant has filed only 4 appeals before CPIO, O/o Pr. CCIT, Mumbai. Thus the in case of rest of 95 appeals this office has no information. Further, appellant has not filed any First Appeal before the First Appellate Authority as per records available with this Office. As per the provisions of RTI Act, 2004 appellant is required to file First appeal before filing 2nd appeal before the Hon'ble CIC.
(c) In this case, appellant filed complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act without filing any First appeal and 2nd appeal before Hon'ble CIC. Earlier also assesse filed 100 complaint against various CPIO of Mumbai Jurisdiction under Income tax Department.
5. Merits of the case:
Page 86 of 99(a) The information sought is for the period Assessment year 2003-04 to today, further the information is voluminous in nature and hence, collating and compiling it would disproportionately divert the resources of the department.
As such, the disclosure of the information is not mandatory as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(b) It is further submitted that the appellant is asking for blanket information i.e. not specific information. Under the RTI Act, "information" is defined under Section 2(f) as any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, ad vices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force, Hence, the information sought cannot be provided as per the provision of section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(c) In respect of the impractical demands of the appellants, reliance is placed on the Apex Court decision in the case of CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011, Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.7526/2009.
"37. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
7. In conclusion, it is humbly submitted that the Public Authority has complied with all the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and hence it is requested that the appeal may be rejected, if deemed fit.
Page 87 of 998. This may kindly be treated as reply of the Respondent, in all the appeal attached as Annexure A, as response to Notice of hearing for appeal in the above referred matter."
Written submissions 2:
"3. On perusal of RTI application, it is observed that the information sought by the applicant is voluminous in nature; collating and compiling it would disproportionately divert the resources of the Department. As such, the disclosure of the information is exempted as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. It is also observed that the information sought by the applicant is general in nature and does not pertain to the charge of DCIT, Central Circle-7(3), Mumbai.
4. It is important to note that only such information can be supplied under this Act, which already exists and is held by the Public Authority or held under the control of the Public Authority. The Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information or to interpret information or to solve the problems raised by the applicant or to furnish replies to hypothetical question.
5. From the above discussion, it is clear that the CPIO can only provide the information, which is available on record and cannot create/analysis/interpret the information. Further, it is submitted that the information sought is not maintained in this office as asked by the applicant. Hence, the undersigned office is not in the position to provide the same"
Written submissions 3:
"4.2 Without prejudice to the above, it will be appreciated and most humbly submitted that information sought in RTI application mentioned at Sr. No. 1 relates to 17 to 19 years back from the year 2022 and the information sought in RTI application mentioned at Sr. No. 2 relates to period from 01/04/2008 to 31/03/2011 i.e. about 11 to 14 years back from the year 2022. During the year 2013 restructuring took place in the Income-tax Department whereby vast changes were made not only in the jurisdiction but also abolition of certain charges and creation of certain new charges, resulting in large movement of records from one place to another and also from one charge to another. Further, there was another restructuring in the Income-tax Department in the year 2020 whereby Faceless Assessment Units were created by abolishing many charges and / or merger of one charge into another charges necessitating Page 88 of 99 major shifting of offices and records, etc. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to collate and collect the information sought by the RTI applicant more specifically, having regard to the fact that the information sought relates to 13 to 19 years back. Moreover, no such data is maintained in this office wherefrom the information sought could be collaged. Each charge has jurisdiction over thousands of cases. In order to collate the information sought, the limited manpower and resources at the disposal of this office would have to be completely diverted to very each and every individual case records, which are thousands in number. Such a diversion of the limited manpower and resources would adversely affect the other statutory work of this office, including work of judicial nature, which are bound by limitation of time. Thus, the information sought being voluminous in nature, collating and compiling the same would disproportionately divert the limited resources of the Department. As such, the disclosure of the information sought is not mandatory as per section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
5. The information to the extent mentioned at Sr. No. 4.2 should have been made available to the RTI applicant / complainant, which according to the then officer who was holding the charge had remained to be done owning to work pressure. For this lapse, a humble apology is hereby sought".
Written submissions 4:
"3.1.2 It is most humbly submitted, that the information sought relates to A.Υ. 2003-04 which is around 17-18 years back from the year 2022. During the year 2013, restructuring took place in the Income Tax Department, whereby vast changes were made not only in the jurisdiction but also abolishing charges and creating new charges. Such an exercise saw large movement of records from one place to another and also from one charge to another. Further, there was another restructuring in the Income Tax Department in the year 2020, whereby faceless assessment units were created by abolishing many charges and/or merging of one charge into another charge. This too saw a major shifting of offices / records etc. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to collate and collect the information sought by the complainant more specifically that the information pertains to around 17-18 years back i.e. for A.Y. 2003-04.
3.1.3 Besides, no such data is maintained wherefrom the information sought could be collated. Each charge has the jurisdiction over around thousands of cases. In order to collate the information so sought, the work force and Page 89 of 99 resources of this office would have been diverted completely to verify each and every individual case record, which are thousands in number. This diversion would have hampered other statutory work including judicial in nature, which that is bound by limitation of time. Thus, the information sought being voluminous in nature, collating and compiling it would have disproportionately diverted the resources of the department. As such, the disclosure of the information is not mandatory as per section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
3.1.4 Considering the above position and on perusal of the information sought, it was noticed that the query of the applicant does not fall in the category of Information, as the record for the information sought is not feasible to maintain, hence, not able to provide the information.
3.1.5. It may be noted a reply (copy enclosed) has been sent to the Applicant stating the fact that information sought by him is exempt as per section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
4.Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that Appellant has filed Complain u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005. The Section 18 of the Act opens with the words "Subject to the provisions of this Act", which implies that this section operates in consonance with and not in conflict with or independent of the rest of the provisions of the Act. In other words section 18 does not enjoy an overriding status over other provisions more particularly section 19. However, in the present case, complainant has not opted to file First Appeal as per Section 19 which provides for an efficacious remedy to the fundamental requirement of information under the Act."
Written submissions 5:
"It is most humbly submitted, that the information called for was pertaining to very old data le. as early as A. Yr. 2003-04 and it is practically impassible to gather the data as the scrutiny selection was done manually and therefore the assessment records dating to 20 years back are not traceble."
I tender my sincere apologies for not furnishing reply to the RTI request and request your kind honour to not impose any penalty/fine in this regard."
Written submissions 6:
"4. It is important to note that only such information can be supplied under this Act, which already exists and is held by the Public Authority or held under the Page 90 of 99 control of the Public Authority. The Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information or to interpret information or to solve the problems raised by the applicant or to furnish replies to hypothetical question.
5. From the above discussion, it is clear that the CPIO can only provide the information, which is available on record and cannot create/analysis/interpret the information. Further, it is submitted that the information sought is not maintained in this office as asked by the applicant. Hence, the undersigned office is not in the position to provide the same."
Written submissions 7:
"4.1 It is most humbly submitted, that the information sought relates to Assessment Year(AY) 2003-04, 2008-09 and 2009-10, which is around 12 to 19 years back from the year 2022. During the year 2014, restructuring took place in the Income Tax Department, whereby vast changes were made not only in the jurisdiction but also abolishing charges and creating new charges. Such an exercise saw large movement of records from one place to another and also from one charge to another. Further, there was another restructuring in the Income Tax Department in the year 2020, whereby faceless assessment units were created by abolishing many charges and/or merging of one charge into another charge. This too saw a major shifting of offices/records etc. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to collate and collect the information sought by the complainant more specifically that the information pertains to 17 to 19 years back ie. for A.Y. 2003-04.
4.2 Besides, no such data is maintained wherefrom the information sought could be collated.
Each charge has the jurisdiction over around thousands of cases. In order to collate the information so sought, the work force and resources of this office would have been diverted completely to verify each and every individual case record, which are thousands in number. This diversion would have hampered other statutory work including judicial in nature, which that is bound by limitation of time. Thus, the information sought being voluminous in nature, collating and compling it would have disproportionately diverted the resources of the department. As such, the disclosure of the information is not mandatory as per section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.Page 91 of 99
4.3 Considering the above position and on perusal of the information sought, it was noticed that the query of the applicant does not fall in the category of information, as the record for the information sought is not feasible to maintain.
4.4 Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that Appellant has filed Complain u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005. The Section 18 of the Act opens with the words "Subject to the provisions of this Act", which implies that this section operates in consonance with and not in conflict with or independent of the rest of the provisions of the Act. In other words section 18 does not enjoy an overriding status over other provisions more particularly section 19.
However, in the present case, complainant has not opted to file First Appeal as per Section 19 which provides for an efficacious remedy to the fundamental requirement of information under the Act.
5. Further, I humbly submit my unconditional apology for the delay in replying to the RTI I humbly request you to forgive and not to penalize, I further assure that no such delay will occur in future."
Decision:
At the outset, the Commission observes that identical issues of the Complainant have already been heard on 17.05.2024 and decided on 21.05.2024, by the Commission in Complaint file Nos.
CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626734 & ors. of the same Public Authority of same office. Relevant observations of the Commission in the said decisions are reproduced hereinbelow:
"xxxxxxxx The Commission further observes that the Complainant has not filed any First Appeal or Second Appeal in the above-mentioned cases as also in all cases adjudicated by this bench so far, and reasons for the same could not be ascertained as he was not present before the Commission despite notice. In a Complaint case, the Commission cannot give any relief for information under Page 92 of 99 Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only restricted role lies is to adjudicate whether the information has been malafidely denied by the CPIO or undue hindrance has been caused by the Respondent. It is noteworthy that the Complainant was not present before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the Respondents and further agitate the matter.
The Commission is not inclined to accept the prayer of the Complainant to impose penalty as well as for recommendation of disciplinary proceedings against the concerned CPIOs in the absence of any mala fide on part of the Respondent. The conduct of the Complainant shows his intention to pressurize the CPIO with the fear of penal action than actual delivery of information to him.
Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 1900 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 a total number of 100 complaints cases including the present set of cases listed for today's hearing and the same have been heard together simultaneously. The Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information in each of his RTI Applications with minor changes apparently 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.
xxxxxxxxxx Regarding imposition of penalty to the CPIO/PIO under section 20 of the RTI Act, the Commission took note of the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC & Anrs. WP(C) 3114/2007 vide order dated 03.12.2007 held that:Page 93 of 99
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two-year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the public 4 information officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of the information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act cannot be issued....."
Emphasis supplied Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:
"Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely. ......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it." In view of the above, the Commission finds that there is no mala fide on part of the respondent while replying to the RTI application. That being so, and in the absence of any merit in the complaint, the same is liable to be dismissed.
The Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 1200 cases of the same Complainant against same/another Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In this regard, it is also worth noting that the instant Complaints listed for today's hearing have been heard together along with other 74 matters of the Complainant simultaneously and the Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications for the same nature of information sought by merely expanding the time span of information sought in each of his RTI Applications apparently to pressurize the public Page 94 of 99 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 citizen. It appears that the complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.
It appears that the Complainant has been repeatedly seeking information on similar subject matters, thus using up the time and resources of the Public Authority disproportionately. Such repetitive litigation is counter-productive to the RTI regime, and this aspect has been discussed by the Apex Court in detail in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para
11), where J. Pasayat had held:
".........It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but expressing our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case... ... ... etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system..........."
Emphasis supplied Page 95 of 99 It is also pertinent to note that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) Vs B Bharathi [WP No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014] has also given its opinion about such vexatious and repetitive litigation crippling the public authorities and held as follows:
"...The action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest....."
Emphasis supplied The Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] has also made similar observations:
"....... This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficial Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. ...................."
Emphasis supplied In the other landmark judgement in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Apex Court held as follows:
"...37. ............................ Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties..."
Emphasis supplied Page 96 of 99 In view of this, the Commission finds it pivotal to highlight a recent decision of this bench, wherein aspect of "misuse of the right to information Act by the Appellant" has been explained in a manner. In this regard, ratio laid down in the matter of Nandkishor Gupta v. CPIO, Northwestern Railway, Head Quarter Office, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur - 302017. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
"The Appellant being a serving employee of the respondent Public Authority has as much right to information as is available to any other citizen of India. However, such a serving employee has an added obligation to frame the request in simplest and most easily understood form possible because he/she knows the circumstances under which his/her colleagues are working while also discharging the additional duty as CPIO and FAA. Therefore, the conduct of the Appellant in the present matter, to say the least, is questionable and is not appreciated. Accordingly, the appellant is cautioned and admonished wherein he should keep in mind that the RTI Act should be used judiciously, sensibly and responsibly so that purpose of the RTI Act would not be defeated. The Commission leaves it to the concerned disciplinary authority for any consequent action in the matter. "
The Complainant has not been judicious in the use of RTI Act and has been using it as a tool to harass the Public Authority. The Complainant is therefore cautioned to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner."
Notwithstanding the above, the Commission admonishes the conduct of the Complainant as he is not abiding by the repetitive advice of the Commission and filing repetitive similar RTI Applications which is against the spirit of RTI Act and clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. In this regard, the Commission invites attention of the parties towards a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in a case titled Biplab Kumar Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. WPA 3116 of 2022 wherein it was held as under -
"...It appears from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner's ploy is to collect information under the Right to Information Act and thereafter use the said information to harass the private parties as well as the Municipality for unlawful gain. The conduct of the petitioner appears to be plainly harrassive and mala fide.Page 97 of 99
The averments and allegations made in the writ petition remains unsubstantiated. The writ petition is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed with costs.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) only to be paid by the petitioner in the office of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within September 30, 2022..."
In view of the above, the issue having attained finality on the principles of res- judicata may not be opened again. Moreover, the Complainant did not appear before the Commission despite service of notice to contest his cases. Written submissions filed by the Respondent are taken on record. The Respondents, during the hearing, submitted that copies of the detailed written submissions filed before the Commission have already been shared with the Complainant. However, as per the record placed before the Commission, no proof was given by the Respondents to support their claim about service of written submissions/reply to the Complainant. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Respondents are advised to share copies of written submissions given in respective files (if not given earlier) to the Complainant, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The Commission further observes that there is a substantial delay in providing replies to the Complainant on the above-mentioned RTI applications. In this regard, the Respondent, during the hearing, informed the bench that due to some technical reasons owing to merging and restructuring thrice that has already been submitted in previous cases by Respondent Public Authority, the above-mentioned RTI applications were not attended within the mandated period. The Respondents apologized for the same and assured that such lapses would not recur in future, therefore, the Commission finds no mala fide on part of the CPIOs.
Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 2100 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 a total number of 100 complaints cases including the present set of cases listed for today's hearing and the same have been heard together simultaneously.
Page 98 of 99The 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 Right to Information Act in future.
With these observations, the instant Complaints are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 99 of 99 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)