Central Information Commission
Radha Raman Tripathy vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 6 May, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCITP/C/2023/633093 CIC/CCITP/C/2023/634160
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/638685 CIC/CCITP/C/2023/623592
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/623601 CIC/CCITP/C/2023/623605
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/624220 CIC/CCITP/C/2023/633095
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/634156 CIC/CCITP/C/2023/634167
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623855 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625068
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625064 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/634571
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623853 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/633832
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623833 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623837
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623842 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625056
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625058 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625061
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623856 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625069
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625075
RADHA RAMAN TRIPATHY ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Income Tax Office,
Amba Wadi, Palghar,
Maharashtra - 401404
CPIO,
O/o the Addl. Commissioner of
Income Tax, Quereshi Mansion,
Naupada, Thane (W) - 400602
CPIO,
Income Tax Office, 2nd Floor,
Rani Mansion, Murbad Road,
Kalyan - 421301
Page 1 of 40
CPIO
ITO (IT), Aayakar Bhavan,
Telangkhedi Road, Civil lines,
Nagpur - 440001
CPIO
Income Tax Officer, Ward-1,
Aayakar Bhavan, College Road,
Konkapalli, Amalapuram - 533201
CPIO
Income Tax Officer, Ward1(1),
Aayakar Bhavan, KT Road, Nehru
Nagar, Tirupathi - 517501
CPIO
Income Tax Officer, Ward-1,
2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan,
Koru Konda Road, Rajahmundry - 533105
CPIO
Deputy Commissioner of Income
Tax, 1st Floor, Aayakar
Bhavan, Koru Konda Road,
Rajahmundry - 533105
CPIO
Office of the Addl.
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Range-1, CR Building, M.G.
Road, Vijayawada - 520002 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30.04.2025
Date of Decision : 05.05.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned complaints are clubbed together as the Complainant is
common and subject-matter is similar in nature and hence are being
disposed of through a common order.
Page 2 of 40
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/633093
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 06.06.2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.07.2023
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.06.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (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, PUNE.
Page 3 of 401. 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.
2. The fee is paid online."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/634160 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 31.05.2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13.07.2023 Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.05.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (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 4 of 40Since 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, PUNE.
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.
2. The fee is paid online."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/638685 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 20.09.2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 08.08.2023 Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (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 Page 5 of 40 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, PUNE.
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.
2. The fee is paid online."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/623592 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 29.05.2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
Page 6 of 40
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 08.05.2023 Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (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, PUNE.
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.
2. The fee is paid online."
Page 7 of 402. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/623601 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 29.05.2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 08.05.2023 Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (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. Page 8 of 40 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, PUNE.
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.
2. The fee is paid online."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/623605 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 29.05.2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 08.05.2023 Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (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 Page 9 of 40 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, PUNE.
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.
2. The fee is paid online."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/624220 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 31.05.2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.05.2023 Information sought:
Page 10 of 401. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.05.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (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, PUNE.
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.
2. The fee is paid online."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
Page 11 of 403. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/633095 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 29.05.2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.07.2023 Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (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 12 of 40Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, PUNE.
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.
2. The fee is paid online."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CCAPT/C/2023/634156 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 31.05.2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11.07.2023 Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.05.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (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 13 of 40Bribe 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, PUNE.
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.
2. The fee is paid online."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CCITP/C/2023/634167 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 31.05.2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13.07.2023 Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.05.2022 (online) seeking the following information:Page 14 of 40
"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, PUNE.
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.
2. The fee is paid online."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Page 15 of 40CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623855 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 29.05.2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.05.2023 Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (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 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. 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, Hyderabad.
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 16 of 402. The fee is paid online."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625068 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 01.06.2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23.05.2023 Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (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 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. 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 17 of 40It 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, Hyderabad.
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.
2. The fee is paid online."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625064 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 01.06.2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23.05.2023 Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (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 18 of 40Bribe 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, Hyderabad.
2. The fee is paid online."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/634571 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 01.06.2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 15.07.2023 Page 19 of 40 Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (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, Hyderabad.
2. The fee is paid online."
Page 20 of 402. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623853 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 29.05.2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.05.2023 Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (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 21 of 40It 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, Hyderabad.
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.
2. The fee is paid online."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/633832 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 29.05.2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 08.07.2023 Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (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 22 of 40Bribe 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, Hyderabad.
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.
2. The fee is paid online."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623833 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 29.05.2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.05.2023 Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor.Page 23 of 40
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, Hyderabad.
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.
2. The fee is paid online."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623837 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 29.05.2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
Page 24 of 40
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.05.2023
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (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 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, Hyderabad.
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.
2. The fee is paid online."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Page 25 of 40CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623842 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 29.05.2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.05.2023 Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (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, Hyderabad.
Page 26 of 401. 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.
2. The fee is paid online."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625056 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 01.06.2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23.05.2023 Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (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 27 of 40Since 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, Hyderabad.
2. The fee is paid online."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625058 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 01.06.2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23.05.2023 Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
Page 28 of 40"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, Hyderabad.
2. The fee is paid online."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Page 29 of 40CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625061 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 01.06.2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23.05.2023 Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (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 30 of 40It 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, Hyderabad.
2. The fee is paid online."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623856 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 29.05.2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.05.2023 Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (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 31 of 40
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, Hyderabad.
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.
2. The fee is paid online."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625069 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 01.06.2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23.05.2023 Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (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.Page 32 of 40
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, Hyderabad.
2. The fee is paid online."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625075 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 01.06.2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
Page 33 of 40
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23.05.2023
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 (online) seeking the following information:
"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (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, Hyderabad.
2. The fee is paid online."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
Page 34 of 403. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
4. The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent.
Respondent:
i. Shri Raj Kumar Meena, CPIO-ITO and Shri Amit Jangid, the then CPIO-
cum-ITO, attended the hearing through VC from NIC Thane. ii. Shri R.V. Patil, CPIO-cum-ACIT, attended the hearing through VC from NIC Nagpur.
iii. Shri OM Krishna, CPIO-cum-ITO, attended the hearing through VC from NIC East Godavari.
iv. Shri Laxman Kumar, CPIO-cum-DCIT, attended the hearing through VC from NIC Chitoor.
v. Shri G. Prabhakar Rao, CPIO-cum-ITO, attended the hearing through VC from NIC Krishna.
5. The Complainant did not participate in the hearing despite service of the hearing notice.
6. In CIC/CCITP/C/2023/633093 and CIC/CCITP/C/2023/634160, Shri Raj Kumar Meena, CPIO-ITO, submitted that their office has received the RTI Applications on 17.06.2022 and a suitable reply based on available records has been given to the Complainant on 28/29.06.2022, stating as under:
"The requested information does not fall within the jurisdiction of this office"
7. In CIC/CCITP/C/2023/638685, he submitted that the RTI Application was received in their office on 03.10.2022 and a suitable reply based on available records has been given to the Complainant on 13.10.2022, stating as under:
"Nil"Page 35 of 40
8. In CIC/CCITP/C/2023/634167, Shri R.V. Patil, CPIO-cum-ACIT, submitted that the RTI Application was received in their office on 29.05.2022 and a suitable reply based on available records has been given to the Complainant on 27.06.2022, stating as under:
"This information sought is not pertaining to this office"
9. In CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623855 and CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625068, Shri OM Krishna, CPIO-cum-ITO, submitted that the information sought by the Complainant in these cases is not being maintained in the records. He added that their office does not collect statistics which have been sought by the Complainant and accordingly, a suitable reply based on available records has been given to the Complainant on 17.01.2025, stating as under:
"It is submitted that the requisite data is not available with this office."
10. While explaining the delay, he apprised the bench the bench of the fact that at the time of RTI Application, their online RTI portal was not working owing to some technical glitches and further tendered his unconditional apology for the same.
11. In CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625064, CIC/CCITH/C/2023/634571, CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623853 and CIC/CCITH/C/2023/633832, Shri Laxman Kumar, CPIO-cum-DCIT, submitted that the information sought by the Complainant in these cases is not being maintained in the records. He added that their office does not collect statistics which have been sought by the Complainant and accordingly, a suitable reply based on available records has been given to the Complainant on 29.04.2025, stating as under:
"Nil"
12. In CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623856, CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625069 and CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625075, Shri G. Prabhakar Rao, CPIO-cum-ITO, submitted that the information sought by the Complainant in these cases is not being maintained in the records. He added that their office does not collect statistics which have been sought by the Complainant and Page 36 of 40 accordingly, a suitable reply based on available records has been given to the Complainant on 30.04.2025, stating as under:
"Nil"
13. While explaining the delay, he apprised the bench of the fact that at the time of RTI Application, their online RTI portal was not working owing to some technical glitches. He added that restructuring and transfer of offices also led to delays and tendered his unconditional apology for the same.
14. The Respondents further informed the bench of the fact that the complainant has sought information which appears to be non-specific and indefinite. However, the respondents have tried their best and replied to the complainant in the best possible manner and the same is taken on record.
Decision
15. The Commission observed that the present complaints were filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission was only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala fide intent or due to an unreasonable cause or under any other clause of Section 18 of RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission relies on one judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. Vs. State of Manipur & Anr." bearing CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011 decided on 12.12.2011 has held as under:-
"Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid Page 37 of 40 down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a time honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch. D. 426] that where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden."
16. The above ratio is applicable to this case as well. It is noted that the Respondents have already replied to the above RTI applications. The Commission also observes that the complainant has filed his RTI applications before Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune and sought aforesaid information. The Respondent informed that since the complainant sought information about the complete Pune Region, the RTI application was transferred to all the various CPIOs and most of them have replied to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention that the complainant (information seeker) is expecting the respondent (PCCIT, Pune) to collect all the information from the different CPIOs under his entire territorial jurisdiction, compile the same and provide it to him which will divert their resources disproportionately. In this regard, the Commission's attention is attracted to para 3 (iii) of DoP&T OM No. 10/2/2008-IR dated 12th June, 2008 (available in public domain), which requires the information seeker to file separate RTI applications to different offices in order to obtain such scattered information. The relevant paras of the said circular are reproduced as under:
"(iii) A person makes an application to a public authority for information, a part of which is available with that public authority and the rest of the information is scattered with more than one other public authorities. In such a case, the PIO of the public authority receiving the application should give information relating to it and advise the applicant to make separate applications to the concerned public authorities for obtaining information from them. If no part of the information sought, is available with it but is scattered with more than one other public authorities, the PIO should inform the applicant that information is not available with the public authority and that the applicant should make separate applications to the concerned public authorities for obtaining information from them. It may be noted that the Act requires the supply of such information only which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. It is beyond the scope of the Act for a public authority to create information. Collection of information, parts of which Page 38 of 40 are available with different public authorities, would amount to creation of information which a public authority under the Act is not required to do. At the same time, since the information is not related to any one particular public authority, it is not the case where application should be transferred under sub-
section (3) of Section 6 of the Act. It is pertinent to note that sub-section (3) refers to 'another public authority' and not 'other public authorities'. Use of singular form in the Act in this regard is important to note."
17. In addition to the above, the Commission observes that the Complainant has sought information which is not being maintained by the Respondents in their records. However, the Respondents have tried their best and replied to the Complainant in the best possible manner and the same is taken on record. Moreover, the Complainant did not appear before the Commission despite service of notice to contest his cases.
18. The Respondent, during the hearing, informed the bench that due to some technical reasons owing to merging and restructuring, the above- mentioned RTI applications might not be 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. Since records of the case do not indicate any such deliberate denial or concealment of information on the part of the PIO, the Commission concluded that there was no cause of action which would necessitate action under the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 in the instant complaint.
19. Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 2350 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 41 complaint cases including the present set of cases listed for today's hearing. The Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information in each of his RTI Applications to pressurize the Public Authority rather than actual interest in getting the information denied to him, if any. This intention of the Complainant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The Commission, like on several occasions in the past, Page 39 of 40 again advises the Complainant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act in future.
20. The respondent during the hearing submitted that the Complainant has not served a copy of the instant complaints upon the Respondent. The Commission would like to remind the Complainant of the fact that serving a copy of documents (including Complaint, Second Appeal and Written submissions) to the opposite party is crucial for fairness, transparency, and due process in legal proceedings and also in the interest of expeditious response from the concerned Public Authority. It further reinforces the bona fide interest of the Appellant/Complainant in obtaining the information at the earliest possible. The requirement of advanced service is in accordance with the audi alteram partem requirement. It further ensures that the opposite party is aware of the facts of filing a case in CIC, arguments of the Complainant and reason for discontentment. It has been the experience that where the Complainant had served advance copy of the Second Appeal/Complaint on the opposite party, the Respondent Public Authority has tried proactively to resolve the case by either providing clarity on the subject or by providing revised and updated reply/information to the Complainant before the matter reaches for the hearing. This ultimately results in faster delivery of information, thus leading to a more efficient and effective Appeal/Complaint disposal. It also reduces the time, energy and efforts of the Commission and Respondent Public Authority in early disposal. It is in his own interest for the Complainant to serve an advance copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on the Respondents.
The Complaints are dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Page 40 of 40 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)