Central Information Commission
Dilipbhai Chhaganbhai Sojitra vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 20 April, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCITA/A/2024/128860
Dilipbhai Chhaganbhai Sojitra .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Asst.
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle-2, Aaykar Bhawan,
Majura Gate, Surat - 395001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09.04.2026
Date of Decision : 17.04.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08.02.2024
CPIO replied on : 27.02.2024
First appeal filed on : 14.05.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.09.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.02.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"1. Certified copy of the letter of the then JAO i.e. Deputy CIT, Central Circle 2, Surat together with the Draft Assessment Order forwarded for obtaining prior approval of the jurisdictional JCIT, Central Range, Surat in the case of Mr. CIC/CCITA/A/2024/128860 Page 1 of 7 Ramesh Raghavjibhai Bhadani, Mr. Jayesh Mistry, Mr. Gaurang Upadhyay, Mr. Rajubhai Mori (Patel), Mr. Ashwin Raghavjibhai Bhadani, Mr. Vijay Bhadani and Mr. Ravindrabhai Patel, before passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act
2. Certified copies of the documents, materials, statements, reports, etc. including the seized materials and the seized books of accounts forwarded by the then JAO Le. Deputy CIT, Central Circle 2, Surat with the letter for obtaining prior approval of the jurisdictional JCIT, Central Circle, Surat in the case of Mr. Ramesh Raghavjibhai Bhadani, Mr. Jayesh Mistry, Mr. Gaurang Upadhyay, Mr. Rajubhai Mori (Patel), Mr. Ashwin Raghavjibhai Bhadani, Mr. Vijay Bhadani and Mr. Ravindrabhai Patel, before passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act
3. Certified copy of the letter/ approval form/order issued by the jurisdictional JCIT, Central Range, Surat regarding prior approval given as provided u/s 153D of the Act
4. Certified copies of Panchnamas of all the persons covered under the search action u/s 132 of the Act on 18-02-2014
5. Certified copy of the directions issued by the JAO to get the books of accounts audited u/s 142(2A) of the Act to the other associated persons/third persons namely Mr. Ramesh Raghavjibhai Bhadani, Mr. Jayesh Mistry, Mr. Gaurang Upadhyay, Mr. Rajubhai Mori (Patel), Mr. Ashwin Raghavjibhai Bhadani, Mr. Vijay Bhadani and Mr. Ravindrabhai Patel
6. Certified copies of the assessment orders u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act passed by the then JAO i.e. Deputy CIT, Central Circle 2, Surat in the case of Mr. Ramesh Raghaviibhai Bhadani. Mr. Javesh Mistry. Mr. Gaurang Upadhyay, Mr. Rajubhai Mori (Patel), Mr. Ashwin Raghavjibhai Bhadani, Mr. Vijay Bhadani and Mr. Ravindrabhai Patel
7. Certified copy of the certificate if any, for the purpose of admissibility of electronic records seized from the residence of Mr. Piyush G. Modi, the accountant-cum-manager of joint venture run by Mr. Ramesh R. Bhadani, as required u/s 65-B r.w.s. 65-A of the Evidence Act, 1872
8. Certified copy of the letter along with the documents sent to the Director of Forensic Science, Document Forensic Division, Gandhinagar
9. Certified copy of the report of the Director of Forensic Science, Document Forensic Division, Gandhinagar in response to the letter as referred to Sr. No. 8 above CIC/CCITA/A/2024/128860 Page 2 of 7
10. Certified copy of any correspondence/communication with Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Hyderabad forming part of the assessment records"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 27.02.2024 stating as under:
"A copy of RTI application has been received in this office on 09.02.2024 from Shri Dilipbhai Chhaganbhai Sojitra to provide the various documents of Mr. Ramesh Raghavjibhai Bhadani, Mr. Jayesh Mistry, Mr. Gaurang Upadhyay, Mr. Rajubhai Mori (Patel), Mr. Ashwin Raghajibhai Bhadani, Mr. Vijay Bhadani, and Mr. Ravindra Patel.
In above persons, only two persons Shri Ramesh Raghavjibhai Bhadani and Mr. Jayesh Mistry jurisdiction pertain in this charge.
a. On February 13, 2024, a letter asking for permission to provide your information to Shri Dilipbhai Chhaganbhai Sojitra was sent to Shri Ramesh Raghavjibhai Bhadani. A reply received in this office on 22.02.2024, Strong objections have been raised by Shri Ramesh Raghavjibhai Bhadani regarding the document related to his assessment and other proceedings being sent to Shri Dilipbhai Chhaganbhai Sojitra, a third party.
b. Again. On February 13, 2024, a letter asking for permission to provide your information to Shri Dilipbhai Chhaganbhai Sojitra was sent to Shri Jayesh Mistry. A reply received in this office on 22.02.2024, Strong objections have been raised by Shri Jayesh Mistry regarding the document related to his assessment and other proceedings being sent to Shri Dilipbhai Chhaganbhai Sojitra, a third party.
Looking to the objection raised by the above-mentioned reasons, the information relating to him cannot be given to the applicant Shri Dilipbhai Chhaganbhai Sojitra as per the RTI Act 2005.
Other persons do not pertain in this jurisdiction. Therefore, the part reply RTI application transfer to the territorial Jurisdictional Assessing Officer as under.
a. For information related to Shri Ashwin Raghavbhai Bhadani transferred to the ITO Ward-3(2)(6), Surat on 15.02.2024 through physical and intimate to Shri Dilipbhai Chhaganbhai Sojitra on 15.02.2024 through Speed post.
b. For information related to Shri Rajubhai Maganbhai Patel (Rajubhai Mori) transferred to the ITO Ward-3(3)(1), Surat on 14.02.2024 through physical and intimate to Shri Dilipbhai Chhaganbhai Sojitra on 15.02.2024 through Speed Post.CIC/CCITA/A/2024/128860 Page 3 of 7
c. For information related to Shri Gaurang Upadhyuay transferred to the ACIT, Central Circle-3, Surat on 22.02.2024 and intimate to Shri Dilipbhai Chhaganbhai Sojitra on 23.02.2024 through Speed Post.
PAN and address of other following two persons have not been provided to this office by the applicant, accordingly, jurisdiction of this office over these cases does not fall.
1. Mr. Vijay Bhadani.
2. Mr. Ravindrabhai Patel"
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.05.2024. The FAA order is not on record.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Dr. S.M. Moradiya, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, appeared through video conference.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 06.09.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service. Thus, Regulation No. 10 of the Central Information Commission Management Regulations 2007 has not been complied with by the Appellant.
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 28.03.2026 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record, copy of the same was sent to the Appellant. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
"On perusal of the information desired, it is found that the Appellant has desired various documents and details in regard to the following persons: -CIC/CCITA/A/2024/128860 Page 4 of 7
Sl.No. Name of the Permanent Jurisdictional Date of letter Person/Assessee Account Officer through which Number information pass on to other CPIO
1. Shri Ramesh ADKPB0556F With -
Raghavjibhai Undersigned..ACIT
Bhadani , CC-2, Surat
2. Shri Jayesh ACXPM7158A With -
Mistry Undersigned..ACIT
,CC-2, Surat
3. Shri Gaurang AADPU5330N Deputy 22.2.2024
Upadhyay Commissioner of
Income tax,
Central Circle-3,
Surat
4. Shri Rajubhai ADQPP2466G Income tax Officer, 13.2.2024
Mori (Patel) Ward -3(3)(1),
Surat
5. Shri Ashwin AAYPB8580G Income tax Officer, 13.2.2024
Raghajibhai Ward-3(2)(6),
Bhadani Surat
6. Shri Vijay No PAN - -
Bhadani provided by
Appellant
7. Shri Ravindra No PAN - -
Patel provided by
Appellant
As per the above-mentioned table, it is most respectfully submitted that the persons mentioned in the sl.No.1 & 2 namely Shri Ramesh Bhadani and Shri Jayesh Mistry are within the jurisdiction of the office of the undersigned and remaining three persons, namely Shri Gaurang Upadhyay, Shri Rajubhai Mori (Patel) and Shri Ashwin Raghajibhai Bhadani are not in the jurisdiction of this office. Accordingly, vide letter dated 13.2.2024 and 22.2.24, the concerned CIC/CCITA/A/2024/128860 Page 5 of 7 CPIO officer as mentioned in the table above have been informed to take necessary cognizance as desired by the Appellant. Further submitted that, no Permanent Account Numbers have been provided by the Appellants to the undersigned with his RTI application and later on not before the date 27.2.2024. It is important to mention here that without knowledge of the Permanent Account Number of any person, it is not possible to ascertain the details of the jurisdictional officer, in whose possession the case records of that person are kept. Most of the records are kept on Departmental portal ITBA and PAN is mandatory to see any detail of the particular person from ITBA.
Further, remaining two persons namely Shri Ramesh Bhadani and Shri Jayesh Mistry are within the jurisdiction of this office. Accordingly, letters have been issued to these persons on 13.2.2024 requesting for permission to provide their information to the appellant as requested by the Appellant. However they have raised objection against the supply of information in their cases to the appellant vide their letters dated 22.02.2024. Thus, the Appellant was informed vide letter F. No. SRT/ACIT/CC-2/RTI/2023-24 dated 27.02.2024 specifically mentioned that the information relating to him cannot be given to the applicant Shri Dilipbhai Sojitra for the reason of objection raised by the related persons. The said letter dated 27.02.2024 was sent to the Assessee through speed post vide No. EG361107879IN.
Further, Appellant has filed appeal before the first appellate authority Addl. CIT, Central Range, Surat, who has rejected the same vide order dated 13.06.2024.
In view of the above-mentioned facts, this is most respectfully submitted that the information sought was related to the third party, who has raised objection to provide their documents/information to the Appellant vide their letters dated 22.2.2024. Therefore, the requisite information has not provided to the Appellant for the reasons mentioned above. The denial is in accordance to the rules of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Thus, this office has followed the rules of the RTI Act, 2005."
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, observes that the information sought by the Appellant pertains largely to third-party records relating to income tax assessments and connected proceedings. The Respondent has submitted that due procedure under the RTI Act was followed by seeking consent from the concerned third parties, who have expressly objected to the disclosure of their information. Accordingly, the denial of information is found to be in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, CIC/CCITA/A/2024/128860 Page 6 of 7 2005, particularly in view of the protection accorded to third-party personal information.
8. The Commission further notes that, wherever the information pertained to other jurisdictions, the RTI application was appropriately transferred to the concerned CPIOs under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. The Respondent has thus acted in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Appellant is at liberty to pursue them separately before the concerned CPIOs.
9. It is also observed that the Appellant has neither filed any written objection to rebut the submissions made by the Respondent nor appeared before the Commission during the hearing to contest the matter further. In the absence of any rebuttal, the submissions made by the Respondent remain uncontroverted and are taken on record.
10. In view of the above, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply furnished by the Respondent Public Authority and holds that intervention is not warranted in the matter.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कु मार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूच ना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) Sd/-
(S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA Office of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat - 395001 CIC/CCITA/A/2024/128860 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)