Central Information Commission
Sundeep Saggu vs Pr. Chief Commissioner Income Tax, Nwr, ... on 7 July, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DGIIC/A/2021/610915 +
CIC/PCNWR/A/2021/647673
Sundeep Saggu ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Dy. Director of Income Tax(Inv.).
Patiala, RTI Cell, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan,
Patiala-147001, Punjab.
CPIO,
Income Tax Officer, Ward Sunam, RTI Cell,
District-Sangrur, Punjab-148028 .... तवाद गण
/Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing : 06/07/2022
Date of Decision : 06/07/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note: The above referred Appeals have been clubbed for decision as these are
based on the same subject matter.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15/08/2020 & 31/03/2021
CPIO replied on : 02/01/2021 & Not on record
First appeal filed on : 01/12/2020 & 16/06/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : 18/12/2020 & 07/07/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24/03/2021 & 10/10/2021
1
CIC/DGIIC/A/2021/610915
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.08.2020 seeking the following information:
"1. Kindly provide the Diary No./DAK No. and Date of entry of Diary No./DAK No of aforesaid TEP at the O/O PDIT (Investigation), LUDHIANA.
2. Kindly provide certified Copy of Record/Register of aforesaid Diary No./DAK No. of docketing receipt of aforesaid TEP at the O/O PDIT (Investigation), LUDHIANA.
3. Whether any action is taken on aforesaid TEP by O/O PDIT (Investigation), LUDHIANA (Yes/No).
a) 'If' NO, please provide me the reasons for not initiating any action with supporting Documents and Name, Designation, Address of the Official dealing with aforesaid TEP.
b) 'If' YES, kindly provide the Unique Complaint ID No. generated and Date of creation of Unique Complaint ID No. of aforesaid TEP for further processing/investigation by the O/O PDIT (Investigation), LUDHIANA.
c) 'If' YES, kindly mention under which "Category" the aforesaid TEP has been categorised for further processing/investigation by the O/O PDIT (Investigation), LUDHIANA.
d) 'If' YES, kindly mention the "Timeline" for Completion of TEP investigation as per Income Tax Rules for the "Category" in which aforesaid TEP has been categorised as mentioned in Point‐3c.
e) 'If' YES, kindly mention whether the investigation of aforesaid TEP is complete or not as per the Timeline mentioned in Point‐3d, 'If' NO then‐
(i) Kindly mention the reasons for not completing the TEP investigation as per the Timeline mentioned in Point‐3d with supporting documents.
f) 'If' YES, kindly provide in Chronological order details of all Action(s) taken along with respective Date of Action(s) taken till date by respective Officers/Sections of O/o PDIT (Investigation)/ Subordinate office(s) under the jurisdiction of O/o PDIT (Investigation) LUDHIANA, upon receipt of aforesaid TEP.
g) 'If' YES, kindly provide the certified copies of Preliminary Investigations/Assessments those are initiated/made on aforesaid TEP till date.
h) 'If' YES, kindly provide me the Name, Designation, Address & Contact No. of the officer who is investigating aforesaid TEP.
4. Whether Sh. Rajinder Singh & Smt. Karamjeet Kaur are Income Tax Assessee (Yes/No)?2
a) 'If' YES, have they been filing their Income Tax Returns on a regular basis (Yes/No)?
b) 'If' YES, kindly Provide the details with certified copies of Income Declared/ Income Tax Paid by Sh. Rajinder Singh and Smt. Karamjeet Kaur from the period F.Y 2010‐11 to till date.
5. Whether the parties have ever filed any income tax return mentioning the details of source(s) of alleged money & alleged costly items ever given by them in marriage & after marriage of their daughter Smt. Navreet Kaur as "admitted" by the parties in their written submissions during the investigation of complaint No. 13038/P, dt.
17th Dec 2018 at S.S.P Office, Police Lines, Sangrur, subsequently on basis of which FIR No. 153/2019, u/s 498A/406 I.P.C, dt. 22nd June 2019 has been registered at P.S Lehra, District Sangrur (Yes/No)?
6. Whether the parties have paid Income tax & Wealth tax on their alleged cash/jewellery expenses claimed by them in their written submissions in aforesaid FIR (Yes/No)?
7. Whether any search and seizure operations under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were conducted on Business/Residential premises/any other property belonging to the parties namely Sh. Rajinder Singh & Smt. Karamjeet Kaur, to get hold of assets representing income believed to be undisclosed and to apply so much of these assets as may be deemed necessary to discharge a tax liability, including the tax liability arising out of the assessment of undisclosed income as a result of the search (Yes/No)?
a) 'If' YES, kindly provide the details of the assets seized during the search and seizure operation.
b) 'If' NO, kindly provide the reason(s) for not initiating search and seizure under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 w.r.t the TEP filed against the parties.
8. Whether any requisition of books of account, etc. under section 132A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 were carried out by your department to get hold of evidence bearing on the tax liability of the parties, which they may be suspected of withholding from your department (Yes/No)?
a) 'If' YES, kindly provide the details of the requisitioned books of account, documents.
b) 'If' YES, kindly provide the details of the books of account, documents seized "if any" by the investigating officer.
c) 'If' NO, kindly provide the reason(s) for not initiating proceedings under section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 w.r.t the TEP filed against the parties.
39. Advise me from your records, if the investigating officer issued notice(s) to the parties under sections 133/ 133A (5) if the parties are an assessee or under section 148 if the parties are not an assessee or under some other section (Yes/No)?
a) 'If' YES, kindly provide the details of such notices along with date and section under which these were issued to the parties.
b) 'If' NO, mention reasons on record for the same.
10. Advise me from your records, if the investigating officer ordered the parties to file their IT Returns in case, they are not an assessee? In that case, mention due date given to file their IT returns?
11. Whether the parties have attended all hearings at Income Tax Department w.r.t. proceedings initiated against them (Yes/No)? 'If' not, on what dates the parties have not joined the proceedings and what reasons they have assigned to the same.
12. Whether the parties have claimed to have accepted money from relatives/friends/Other sources to help them on the occasion of marriage(s) of their daughter(s) (Yes/No)?
a) 'If' YES, kindly provide the list of all people along with their complete addresses who have helped the parties with money.
b) 'If' YES, have any of such person(s) enumerated in Query 12(a) claimed to have helped the parties with amount more than Rs. 20,000/‐ (Rupees Twenty Thousand only). If so, please provide the name(s) and complete addresses of those person(s).
c) 'If' YES, does any of the person exists enumerated in Query 12(b), which can be subjected to the conditions for flouting section 269SS of Income Tax Act, 1961 and what actions your esteemed department has taken for violation of above?
d) If the said person(s) enumerated in Query 12(b) fall under the jurisdiction of your esteemed office, whether they have penalised under Section 271D for violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act/ or under any other section as applicable? 'If' not, kindly mention the reasons thereof.
e) If the said person(s) enumerated in Query 12(b) did "not" fall under the jurisdiction of your esteemed office, has the information been passed to relevant office having the jurisdiction over that person? 'If' not, kindly mention the reasons thereof.
f) Whether the persons (payers) enumerated in Query 12(b) and the parties (receivers) have reported these transactions to the Tax authorities (Yes/No)? 'If' not, kindly mention the reasons thereof.
g) 'If' NO, kindly mention the sources of money of the parties from where they have managed above alleged expenses of their daughter(s) marriages and also 4 amount spent on other liabilities of his family, investment on the Business run by the parties, properties owned by them.
13. Kindly provide me the Name, Designation & Address of the Officer who is providing this information as there is every apprehension that the information being provided to me will not be relevant & will be misleading.
14. If the department has decided not to provide the above requested information, the reasons why?
15. What reasons your department has for not complying with the ratio of judgement laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh Vs Central Information Commissioner and Others vide Writ Petition (Civil) 3114/ 2007 dated 03.12.2007?
16. What reasons your department has for not providing information sought in Point (d‐g) under Heading "Prayer and relief Sought" of the aforesaid TEP till date?"
The CPIO/Income Tax (Inv.), Ludhiana replied to the appellant on 08.09.2020 stating as follows:-
"...........Tax Evasion Petition submitted by you to this office has been recorded in the computerized Dak receipt system of this office vide Receipt No./Dak No. 20 dated 22.04.2020. Further, this office has transferred the RTI application to the concerned officer vide this office letter No. 1070 dated 21.08.2020 for the information sought in the RTI application at point No. 3 and onwards point 03."
The CPIO/Dy. Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Patiala informed the appellant on 28.12.2020 that the information sought cannot be provided as per section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.12.2020. FAA's order dated 18.12.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO and also transferred the First Appeal to the FAA, O/o the JDIT(Inv.), Ludhiana.
CIC/PCNWR/A/2021/647673 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.03.2021 seeking the following information:5
1. Whether Sh. Rajinder Singh & Smt. Karamjeet Kaur are Income Tax Assessee (Yes/No)?
a) 'If' YES, have they been filing their Income Tax Returns on a regular basis from F.Y 2010‐2011 till date (Yes/No)?
b) 'If' YES, kindly provide the details with certified copies of Net Taxable income/Income Tax Paid by Sh. Rajinder Singh and Smt. Karamjeet Kaur from the period F.Y 2010‐11 till date.
2. Whether the parties have ever filed any Income Tax Return mentioning the details of source(s) of alleged money & alleged costly items ever given by them in marriage & after marriage of their daughter Smt. Navreet Kaur as "claimed" by the parties in their written submissions under section 161 Cr.P.C (enclosed as Annx‐ 'A' (Colly) ) during the investigation of complaint No. 13038/P, dt. 17th Dec 2018 (enclosed as Annx‐ 'B') filed by Smt. Navreet Kaur (D/o Sh. Rajinder Singh and Smt. Karamjeet Kaur) at S.S.P Office, Police Lines, Sangrur, subsequently on basis of which FIR No. 153/2019, u/s 498A, 406 I.P.C, dt. 22nd June 2019 has been registered at P.S Lehra, District Sangrur against the Applicant (Yes/No)?
3. Whether the parties have paid Income tax & Wealth tax on their alleged cash/jewellery expenses claimed by them in their written submissions under section 161 Cr.P.C in aforesaid FIR (Yes/No)?
4. Advise me from your records, if your esteemed department ever ordered the parties to file their IT Returns in case, they are not an assessee? In that case, kindly provide the certified copies of the Notice(s) issued to the parties and mention due date given to file their IT returns?
5. Whether the parties have claimed to have accepted money from relatives/friends/Other sources to help them on the occasion of marriage of their daughter in FY 2011‐2012 and in subsequent years as per their Income Tax Returns of respective years (Yes/No)?
a) 'If' YES, kindly provide the list of all people along with their complete addresses who have helped the parties with money.
b) 'If' YES, have any of such person(s) enumerated in Query 5(a) claimed to have helped the parties with amount more than Rs. 20,000/‐ (Rupees Twenty Thousand only). If so, please provide the name(s) and complete addresses of those person(s).
c) 'If' YES, does any of the person exists enumerated in Query 5(b), which can be subjected to the conditions for flouting section 269SS of Income Tax Act, 1961?
d) Whether the persons (payers) enumerated in Query 5(b) and the parties (receivers) have reported these transactions to the Tax authorities (Yes/No)? 'If' not, kindly mention the details of the procedure to be followed against the defaulters in this case.
6e) 'If' NO, kindly mention the sources of money of the parties from where they have managed above alleged expenses of their daughter marriage in FY 2011‐2012 and also amount spent on other liabilities of his family, investment on the Business run by the parties, properties owned by them."
The CPIO/Patiala, Punjab transferred the RTI application on 31.03.2021 to the CPIO/Addl., Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for providing information directly to the appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.06.2021. FAA's order dated 07.07.2021 held as under:-
"...........information sought by the applicant from the O/o the Income Tax Officer, Ward‐ belongs to 'Third Party' of which the officer is only custodian. Disclosures of such information received by ITO‐cum‐CPIO from any assessee is governed by the provisions of section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the CPIO. Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court of India has also held vide order dated 13.11.2019 in CA No. 10044 of 2010 in CPIO, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Aggarwal " ..Income Tax Returnetc..........are personal information and is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied." The application may, therefore, be treated as disposed of."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal(s).
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference. Respondent No.1: Not present.
Respondent No.2: Not present.
The Appellant narrated the factual background of the information sought for in the RTI Application and argued that the information related to TEP matters cannot be treated as personal information. The sum and substance of his arguments during the hearing are succinctly contained in his written grounds of appeal stating as under:7
"BECAUSE, the details sought for was not to protect any personal interest or to use in a private matrimonial dispute between husband and wife for seeking maintenance, but it was to prove innocence of husband/appellant against whom at the behest of the Complainant, the State had initiated cases under Section 498A, 406 IPC. The information, if shared, could be in greater public interest as stake of Court, Police, Public Prosecutor and husband and wife family are involved. Moreover, the question raised did not seek for disclosure of any new events/data or information, it seeks a confirmation from the Income Tax Department, as to whether the submissions made by the In‐laws of the appellant in the Court of Law were correct or not. For verification purpose even the State case details had been shared...."
Decision:
File No: CIC/DGIIC/A/2021/610915 The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and upon hearing the contentions of the parties finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO. The claim of exemption under Section 24 of the RTI Act is not being called into question as the averred TEP emanates from a matrimonial dispute and has no trappings of any allegation of corruption and/or human rights violation to attract the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act.
In matters related to the exempted organizations under Section 24 of the RTI Act, like DGIT (Inv.), the Commission is guided by a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs Union of India & Ors [W.P.(C) 83/2014] dated 03.02.2014, which held as under:
"4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption...." [Emphasis Supplied] The said judgment was later upheld by a division bench of the Court in LPA 229/2014 on 11.03.2014.8
File No. CIC/PCNWR/A/2021/647673 The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the information sought for by the Appellant pertains to the personal information of third parties and stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..." Emphasis Supplied Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of relief to be ordered in either of the cases.
However, the Commission takes grave exception to the absence of the Respondent(s) during the hearing without intimating any reasons thereof. The 9 Respondent CPIOs are hereby directed to send their written explanation in this regard to the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 10