Central Information Commission
D Pitchaimuthu vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 11 July, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCACH/C/2024/602699, CIC/CCACH/C/2024/628242
CIC/CCACH/C/2024/630303, CIC/CCACH/C/2024/654645,
CIC/CCACH/C/2024/605382, CIC/CCACH/C/2024/609447,
CIC/CCACH/C/2024/622872, CIC/CCACH/C/2024/624589,
CIC/CCACH/C/2024/633583, CIC/CCACH/C/2024/622296
CIC/CCACH/C/2024/621186, CIC/CCACH/C/2024/631047
CIC/CCACH/C/2024/632465, CIC/CCACH/C/2024/654959,
CIC/CCITB/C/2024/623528, CIC/CUSCZ/C/2024/629573/CCACH,
CIC/CCITB/C/2024/639038, CIC/CCITB/C/2024/639662,
CIC/CCITB/C/2024/640056 & CIC/CCACH/C/2024/639883
D Pitchaimuthu ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO,
Office of the Income Tax Officer,
TDS Ward, Nellai City Centre,
Tiruchendhur Road, Rahmath
Nagar, Tirunelveli - 627011
The CPIO
Office of the Joint Commissioner
of Income Tax (TDS), No. 2, V P
Rathinasamy Nadar Road, CR
Building, Bibikulam, Madurai - 625002
The CPIO
Office of the Joint Commissioner
of Income Tax Officer, Tirunelveli
Range, Nellai City Centre,
Tiruchendhur Road, Rahmath Nagar,
Tirunelveli - 627011
Page 1 of 67
The CPIO
The Deputy Director of Income
Tax (Inv.), Income Tax Investigation
Wing, New No. 46 (Old No. 108),
M.G. Road, Chennai - 600034
PIO,
O/o the Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax - I, Wanaparthy Block,
Aayakar Bhawan, 121, M.G. Road,
Chennai - 600034
PIO,
Income Tax Officer (HQ.) (PRO),
Aayakar Bhawan, 121, M.G. Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600034
PIO,
Addl. Director of Income Tax (Vig)(S),
Unit-1, 7th Floor, Annexe Building,
Aayakar Bhawan, No. 121, Mahatma
Gandhi Road, Nangambakkam,
Chennai - 600034
PIO,
Office of the Principal Director of
Income Tax, Centralized Processing
Center, 48/1 & 48/2, Prestige Alpha,
Beratena Agrahara, Electronic City
(Post), Hosur Road, Bengaluru-560500
PIO,
Centralized Processing Cell (TDS),
Aayakar Bhawan, Sector-3,
Vaishali, Ghaziabad - 201010 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 09.07.2025
Date of Decision : 10.07.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Page 2 of 67
The above-mentioned Complaints are clubbed together as the parties are
common, and subject-matter is similar in nature and hence are being
disposed of through a common order.
1. CIC/CCACH/C/2024/602699
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 31.12.2023
CPIO replied on : 04.01.2024
First appeal filed on : 06.01.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 14.01.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18.01.2024
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 31.12.2023 seeking the following information:
"RESPECTED SIR, ENCLOSING HEREWITH A COPY OF THE NOTICE I REQUEST YOU TO FURNISH THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION - 1, COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE CHO TIRUNELVELI IN RESPONSE TO YOUR NOTICE 2, YOUR OFFICE FINDING REPORT RECORDED FOR FURTHER ACTION"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 04.01.2024 stating as under:
"Ms. P. Jaya Gaushika (PAN : BCIPJ9349G) D/o. Shri D. Pitchaimuthu, M3, Housing Board, Behind SBI, Perumalpuram, Tirunelveli filed an e-Nivaran petition before CPC-TDS vide acknowledgement No.14942316 on 24-10- 2023 requesting to take stern action against her employer i.e. City Health Officer, Tirunelveli Corporation, for failing to file TDS quarterly statements. As a result, she was unable to receive TDS credit, which led to a tax demand in her favour. The said petition was pushed to this office on 06-12-2023 and in this regard, necessary directions were given to the City Health and the grievance was resolved vide this office communication to Ms.Pitchaimuth Jaya Gaushika on 06-12-2023.
2. Now, the applicant, Shri D. Pitchaimuthu vide his application under reference cited, requested for the copy of the letter submitted by the City Page 3 of 67 Health Officer, Tirunelveli in the case of Ms. P. Jaya Gaushika and this office finding report in respect of the said case. The submission of the applicant is considered carefully. The applicant has no official relationship with the City Health Officer, Tirunelveli Corporation. It is also observed that in the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of a third party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any larger public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third party. Therefore, in view of the above, the information sought has been denied on the grounds of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005."
3. Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 06.01.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 14.01.2024, held as under.
"After duly perusal of the order passed by CPIO and based on the grounds of appeal, it is contended that the information cannot be disclosed under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act 2005, which exempts the release of information available to a person in a fiduciary relationship unless the competent authority determines that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure.
Accordingly, the 1st Appeal Petition under the RTI Act filed by the appellant stands disposed."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
5. A written submission has been received from Mr. A. Shenbagam, ITO- cum-CPIO/ TDS Ward, vide letter dated 30.06.2025, a copy of which has been sent to the Complainant and the same has been taken on record.
2. CIC/CCACH/C/2024/628242 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14.05.2024 CPIO replied on : 30.05.2024 First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01.07.2024 Page 4 of 67 Information sought:
6. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 14.05.2024 seeking the following information:
"The complaint preferred against the ITO TDS TIRUNELVELI dt 160224 at present in the desk of ITO WARD1 TIRUNELVELI without any action and for seeking ATR the JCIT TIRUNELVELI has confirmed the complaint is not coming under his jurisdiction. The complaint crossed through different officers without sufficient cause transferred by the PCIT MADURAI to the office of JCIT and by the JCIT TO THE DESK OF ITO WARD1 TIRUNELVELI on 29032024, I SUBMIT THE COMPLAINT NOT DEALT WITH AS PER DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS OF GOVT GUIDELINES as evident from its sleeping in the desk of ITO WARD 1 TIRUNELVELI is the cause for this RTI answerable by the CPIO OF PCIT MADURAI where from the PMOPG COMPLAINT was tfd to the JCIT Tirunelveli, INFORMATION SOUGHT 1 ACTION TAKEN AGAINST THE ITO TDS TUNELVELI ON THE BASIS OF MY COMPLAINT 2 REASON FOR NON SETTLEMENT OF REFUND RS5200 TO THE TAXPAYER TILL DATE"
7. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 30.05.2024 stating as under:
"1 : ACTION TAKEN AGAINST THE ITO TDS TUNELVELI ON THE BASIS OF MY COMPLAINT The applicant filed a CPGRAMS in PMOPG/E/2024/0036647 dated 16-02- 2024 and the gist of complaint is below :
Mismatch in Form 26AS in respect of Ms. Jayagaushika during the F.Y.2022-23 for Rs.15,600/- for 3 months December, 2022, January, 2023 and February, 2023. My employer, City Health Officer is lethargic in handling the issue despite several letters, reminders willfully dragged the issue for an year by not remitting TDS to Government. My complaint handled by the ITO, TDS in a casual manner issued notice to the employer not u/s.276B rather diluted the issue u/s.192. Further without concerned about my grievances of holding the Stigma defaulter u/s.143 biasedly Page 5 of 67 acted in favour of my employer by giving time as per their choice leaving me in lurch for more than 6 months. ITO TDS omissions are not in line with the service rules of the department, hence his actions needs review from the department.
Reply:
The e-Nivaran petition filed before CPC-TDS vide acknowledgement No.14942316 on 24-10- 2023 was pushed to the O/o the ITO, TDS ward, Tirunelveli on 06-12-2023. Upon receipt of the petition, necessary proceedings u/s.201(1) / 201(1A) has been initiated by the officer as per the Income Tax Act-1961. As per the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as per the Principal of Natural Justice sufficient opportunity has been given to the deductor. The fact was also duly communicated to you on various dates. During the course of the said proceedings, the deductor i.e. the City Health Officer, Tirunelveli filed TDS quarterly statement for the F.Y.2022-23 and has given total TDS credit of Rs.15,600/- for the F.Y.2022-23 which is reflected in Form 26AS as well. In view of the above, your grievance was fully resolved with respect to TDS matter.
During the course of the said proceedings, it is learnt that the deductor is functioning under Health Department of Government of Tamil Nadu and all payments are made by the District Treasury. The fact is that the deductor deducted TDS from the monthly salary of Ms. P. Jayagaushika which was remitted to Government Account through book adjustments. Hence, there is no default of TDS non remittances and the provisions of Section 276B is not warranted in the impugned case. However, the deductor failed to file TDS quarterly statements which caused the mismatch in Form 26AS. Considering the facts of the case, to state that the CHO, Tirunelveli is a defaulter of TDS non remittance and an offender u/s.276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not factually correct.
On receipt of e-Nivaran petition, the ITO, TDS Ward, Tirunelveli has initiated appropriate proceedings and has given sufficient opportunity to the deductor as per the provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961 as well as per the Principal of Natural Justice. In response, the deductor has filed TDS quarterly statement for the F.Y.2022-23 and has given TDS credit for the full amount to Ms. Jayagaushika. The ITO, TDS has initiated appropriate proceedings against the City Health Officer as per the Page 6 of 67 provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and hence your complain that the ITO, TDS handled the matter in a casual manner is baseless. Similarly, your complaint that ITO, TDS biasedly acted in favour of City Health Officer by giving time as per their choice is also factually wrong. As per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as per the Principal of Natural Justice, the deductor should be given sufficient opportunity of being heard during the course of any proceedings under the Act. As such, the City Health Office has been given sufficient opportunity of being heard to explain his side. There is no omission on the part of the ITO, TDS during the course of said proceedings and he has acted as per the procedure as laid down in the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In view of the same, no review action is deemed warranted against him. DAR&PG formulates public grievance redress mechanisms for effective and timely redress and settlement of citizens's grievances. It has been making endeavors to bring excellence in public service delivery and to redress the grievances of citizens in a meaningful manner by effectively coordinating with different ministries and departments of the government and trying to eliminate the causes of grievances. In line with the said mechanism, your grievance of a TDS mismatch in Form 26AS has been fully resolved. Nevertheless, your requirement to initiate prosecution proceedings against the City Health Officer who is a non- defaulter u/s.276B does not qualify under the category of grievance. Hence, your complaint regarding the initiation of prosecution proceedings u/s.276B against the City Health Officer could not be considered as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961."
8. Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 31.05.2024. The FAA order is Not on record.
9. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
3. CIC/CCACH/C/2024/630303 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 30.05.2024
CPIO replied on : 14.06.2024
First appeal filed on : Not on record
Page 7 of 67
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.07.2024 Information sought:
10. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 30.05.2024 seeking the following information:
"This has ref to the letter from additional commissioner of income tax TDS range Madurai Shri V.R HARI dt 30.05.2024 bearing number ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1065244972(1) wherein it is confirmed as follows - second page 3rd para reads, THE FACT IS THAT THE DEDUCTOR DEDUCTED TDS FROM THE MONTHLY SALALRY OF MS JAYAGAUSHIKA WHICH WAS REMITTED TO GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT THROUGH BOOK ADJUSTMENTS. THIS STATEMENT WARRANT RTI AS FOLLOWS- INFORMATION SOUGHT 1 NAME OF THE OFFICER WHO HAS CONFIRMED THIS STATEMENT 2 GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT MEANS INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ACCOUNT OR STATE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT 3 TITLE OF THE STATE GOVT ACCOUNT-IF TAN NUMBER OF CHO ACCOUNT PROVIDE THE TAN NUMBER."
11. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 14.06.2024 stating as under:
"1: The fact is that the deductor deducted TDS from the monthly salary of Ms. P. Jayagaushika which was remitted to Government Account through book adjustments. This statement warrant RTI as follows:
1. Name of the officer cannot be disclosed as per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005
2. TDS amount is credited to central govt. account by the District Treasury Office
3. TDS amount is not credited to state government account. For more information in this regard, you are suggested to contact District Treasury Office, Tirunelveli."
12. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Page 8 of 674. CIC/CCACH/C/2024/654645 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 27.10.2024 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 : 09.12.2024 Information sought:
13. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 27.10.2024 seeking the following information:
"THIS RTI PERTAINING TO THE CPIO COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS COIMBATORE, THE ENCLOSURE READS NO DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED, INFORMATION SOUGHT 1 KINDLY PROVIDE THE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY OR FACT FINDING REPORT ON THE COMPLAINT AGAINST SHRI MAHARAJAN GOMATHINAYAGAM ITO TDS TIRUNELVELI LEADING TO THE DECISION NO DISIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS WARRANTED AGAINST HIM."
14. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
5. CIC/CCACH/C/2024/605382 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 15.11.2023 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 25.12.2023 First Appellate Authority's order : 12.01.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 08.02.2024 Information sought:
15. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 15.11.2023 seeking the following information:
Page 9 of 67"Issue in brief my employer TAN number is MRIT02XXXG CITY HEALTH OFFICER TIRUNELVELI CORPORATION TIRUNELVELI 627001. TDS deducted for the month of Dec 2022 Jan 2023 and Feb 2023( salary belatedly paid) not remitted to IT Dept despite first representation dt 03.08.2023 and subsequent several follow up. Unfortunately TDS of mine must be the only amount parking in the TAN number due to my transfer from other station Non remittance of TDS is willful and due to lethargic attitude only. Hence it is my responsibility to doubly ensure the TDS of mine is lying in the TAN number of my employer. Hence the invoking RTI Act inevitable in my own interest and the information sought as below-
1 please provide the statement of TAN number MRIT02526G FOR THE PERIOD 01.02.2023 ΤΟ 30.09.2023."
16. Having not received any response from CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 25.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 12.01.2024, held as under:
"Giving effect to the order u/s.19(1) of the Additional Commissioner of Income tax, TDS Range, Madurai and the First Appellate Authority under RTI Act, 2005 vide reference (ii) cited above, the following information is furnished to the applicant as requested :
The deductor did not file any TDS quarterly statement for the period from 01-02-2023 to 30-09-2023."
17. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
18. A written submission has been received from Mr. A. Shenbagam, ITO- cum-CPIO/ TDS Ward, vide letter dated 30.06.2025, a copy of which has been sent to the Complainant and the same has been taken on record.
6. CIC/CCACH/C/2024/609447 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 21.01.2024
CPIO replied on : 29.01.2024
First appeal filed on : 01.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 01.03.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 02.03.2024
Page 10 of 67
Information sought:
19. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 21.01.2024 seeking the following information:
"Brief of the issue TDS deduction is mandatory obligation on the part of employer and non remittance of amount to Govt account attract sec 276b if the delay is wilful and lethargic. If non compliance of notice established it is the responsibility of the IT Dept to recover the money after due notice by stamping the defaulter as a deemed assessee in default. The responsibility is ABSOLUTE and no discretion to extend time for compliance allowed, as it would cause injustice to the employee for branding him as a defaulter due to mismatch in form 26as. In the above context if there is lack of good faith, basic ethics and fairness in dealings, mutual trust and confidence or not in conformity with principles of natural justice sections of RTI Act can not be invoked in favour of Public Authority Viz Employer and IT Dept. In respect of subject enclosure the ITO TDS has already completed the enquiry on 18.12.2023 and still non compliance of his notice by the employer is established on record. IN THIS BACKDROP the following information requested.
1 Reason recorded for not raising demand against the offender us 276b enabling the processing of ITR where refund is involved. 2 Reason recorded for non compliance of DARPG office memorandum 7085 dt 27.07.2022 for the redressal of grievances pending since 03.08.2023 with the DEPT.
3. Please provide the copy of the show cause notice served to the employer, CHO, a communication originated on account of complaint from the BCIPJ9349G which could not be treated as otherwise as a communication between the employer OFFENDER and the Dept during normal course of business with mutual trust and confidence."
20. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 29.01.2024 stating as under:
"1. The request of the applicant is considered carefully in the lights of the facts of the case. The e-Nivaran petition filed by Ms. P. Jaya Gaushika before CPC-TDS vide acknowledgement No.14942316 on 24-10-2023 was resolved and the fact was communicated to Ms. Pitchaimuth Jaya Gaushika on 06-12-2023. The applicant, Shri D. Pitchaimuthu has no official relationship with the City Health Officer, Tirunelveli Corporation and is not one of the parties to the subject. It is also observed that in the Page 11 of 67 instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of a third party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any larger public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third party. In the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande... Petitioner Versus Cen. Information Commr. & Ors... Respondents [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012 ( CC 14781/2012), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
2. In the case of CPIO/Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (H.Q) Exemption, New Delhi Vs. Girish Mittal in W.P.(C) 10193/2022 & CM APPLS. 29509/2022, 52778/2023 dated 22-01-2024, Hon'ble Delhi High Court sets aside the order of Central Information Commission (CIC) which directed the 'CPIO/DCIT HQ Exemption, New Delhi (Petitioner) to provide the information as sought by the Respondent through the Right to Information (RTI) application i.e. copies of all the documents submitted in the exemption application and copies of the file notings etc. It is observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that Income Tax Act, which is a special Act governing all the provisions and laws relating to income tax and super-tax in the country will prevail over the RTI Act which is in the nature of a General Act, denies PM CARES Fund's tax-exemption related documents IME TAX DEPART
3. In the case of Rajesh Bhatia, Hyderabad vs AddI. CIT Hyderabad 2007/00282 Dt 28/05/07, it is held by the Central Information Commission that the matter was still undergoing enquiry and therefore the information in the present shape cannot be disclosed. Whether it can be disclosed after the assessment has been finalized and the tax liability determined, is a matter which can be taken up at an appropriate time, should a petition for disclosure of information be made to the CPIO at that time.Page 12 of 67
4. Information sought for vide Sl.No.1 and 2 are in question format. The Act does not expect the PIO to find answer for raised question. A PIO is not expected to provide intangible such as interpretations, opinions, advices, explanations, reasons as they are not included in the definition of information in Section 2(f) of RTI Act. 2005.
5. Moreover, the information cannot be disclosed under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act 2005, which exempts the release of information available to a person in a fiduciary relationship unless the competent authority determines that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure.
6. Therefore, in view of the above, the information sought has been denied on the grounds of Section 8(1)(j) & 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005"
21. Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 01.02.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 01.03.2024, held as under.
"After due perusal of the order passed by CPIO and based on the grounds of appeal, the information sought by appellant cannot be disclosed under section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act 2005, which exempts the release of information available to a person in a fiduciary relationship or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
Further the Appellant has failed to establish any 'Larger Public Interest"
involved in seeking the information. In other words, he has not established a bona fide public interest in seeking the information. For the aforesaid reasons and after considering the appellant's submissions and material on record, the action of the CPIO in refusing the information sought is upheld.
Accordingly, the First Appeal Petition under the RTI Act filed by the appellant stands disposed."
22. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
23. A written submission has been received from Mr. A. Shenbagam, ITO- cum-CPIO/ TDS Ward, vide letter dated 30.06.2025, a copy of which has been sent to the Complainant and the same has been taken on record.
Page 13 of 677. CIC/CCACH/C/2024/622872 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 31.03.2024 CPIO replied on : 06.05.2024 First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 30.05.2024 Information sought:
24. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 31.03.2024 seeking the following information:
"The enclosed grievance complaint submitted to the DGIT VIG on 16022024 still not landing in any officers desk shifted like a throw ball for more than 44 days and the present being by MANOJ PRAKASH S JCIT TIRUNELVELI RANGE to the desk of S SOORIYAKUMARI ITO WARD 1 TIRUNELVELI.
The basic principle a delegate JCIT can not further delegate the responsibility not followed by the JCIT and the disciplinary process a special task which cant be simply assigned to any officer without following the guidelines for the same. THE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR THE PRESENT RTI IS REST WITH THE INDIFFERENT ATTITUDE OF JMONOJ PRAKASH JCIT ACT OF TRANSFERING THE COMPLAINT ADDRESSED TO THE DGIT TO THE DESK OF ITO TIRUNELVELI warrants this RTI. INFORMATION SOUGHT 1 REASON RECORDED BY JCIT FOR TRANSFERING THE COMPLAINT TO S. SOORIYAKUMARI ITO Yours faithfully D PITCHAIMUTHU PS THE REASON FOR ROUTING THE RTI THROUGH CBODT IS THE OFFICIALS AT TOP LEVEL CAN UNDERSTAND HOW THE TAX PAYERS COMPLAINT BEING HANDLED BY FIELD LEVEL OFFICERS FOR THE PAST 44 DAYS"
25. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 06.05.2024 stating as under:
"The Applicant Shri D. Pichaimuthu has filed an Online RTI request vide Registration No: CCACH/R/T/24/00098 dated 09/04/2024 under section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act,2005 to obtain below information.Page 14 of 67
As the Applicant is Citizen of India and has paid the Application fee, the information sought by him is provided.
2 Information sought by Applicant "Respected sir The enclosed grievance complaint submitted to the DGIT VIG on 16022024 still no landing in any officers desk shifted like a throw ball for more than 44 days and the present being by MANOJ PRAKASH S JCIT TIRUNELVELI RANGE to the desk of S SOORIYAKUMARI ITO WARD 1 TIRUNELVELI. The basic principle a delegate JCIT can not further delegate the responsibility not followed by the JCIT and the disciplinary process a special task which cant be simply assigned to any officer without following the guidelines for same. THE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR THE PRESENT TRI IS REST WITH THE INDIFFERENT ATTITUDE OF JMONOJ PRAKASH JCIT ACT OF TRANSFERRING THE COMPLAINT ADDRESSED TO THE DGIT TO THE DESK OF ITO TIRUNELVELI warrents this RTI INFORMATION SOUGHT 1 REASON RECORDED BY JCIT FOR TRANSFERING THE COMPLAINT TO S.SOORIYAKUMARI ITO Yours faithfully D PITCHAIMUTHU.
PS THE REASON FOR ROUTING THE RTI THROUGH CBODT IS THE OFFICIALS AT TOP LEVEL CAN UNDERSTAND HOW THE TAX PAYERS COMPLAINT BEING HANDLED BY FILED LEVEL OFFICERS FOR THE PAST 44 DAYS."
2.1 Facts of the request The below antecedents are required to be discussed before providing the information sought.
It is seen from the records that the applicant has filed a CPGRAMS vide PMOPG/E/2024/0036647 to PM Office on 16/02/2024 which was auto forwarded to the Central Board of Direct Taxes (herein after CBDT) followed by DGIT(Vigilance) on the same date. On 19/02/2024 the CBDT has transferred the request to Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai as the issue relates to TDS matter it was later taken up with subordinate organization and forwarded to the TDS. In the mean time applicant has filed reminder on various dates. Further the issue was reported as settled on 26/02/2024 as "the entire TDS credit for the financial years 2022-23 & 2023-24 is reflected in 26AS" and action taken report was forwarded to the higher authority to settle the grievance.
Subsequently, on 23/03/2024 the Applicant Shri D. Pichaimuthu has raised a reminder in the CPGRAMS portal which was transferred from CBDT to Pr. CCIT, Chennai. Afterwards it was transferred to CCIT(TDS), Chennai, then re-
Page 15 of 67forwarded from CCIT, Chennai to CCIT, Madurai on 26/03/2024 with the following comments from the DGIT(SYSTEMS)/CPC ITR to be forwarded to ITO, WARD-1, TIRUNELVELI for expeditious resolution of the grievance. The JAO may be directed to follow the detailed instruction of the CPCIT/DGIT(Systems) at S.No.21 & 22 of the action history and to fully resolved the grievance and upload the final report along with documentary evidence on redressal of grievance."
Later the grievance was reforwarded to Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai on 27/03/2024 with aforesaid comments. On 29/03/2024 the applicant's grievance was forwarded to the Tirunelveli Range which is functioning under the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax of Madurai Charge.
a. Information Provided:
The information is herewith provided that the Jurisdiction of the assessee Ms. Pichaimuthu Jaya Gaushika D/o. Pichaimuthu, vested with Smt. S. Sooriyakumar, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tirunelveli(JAO) who is having the right to exercise rectification proceeding in the case of the assessee in accordance with law.
As per the organizational set up of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the grievance was transferred for taking the necessary action that vests with the JAO and therefore, the grievance is forwarded from the CBDT to JAO. This is the reason for transferring the complaint to S. Sooriyakumari, ITO JAO from this office JCIT, Tirunelveli Range.
3. As the requisite information sought by the applicant has been provided the RTI request filed under the RTI Act,2005 before the undersigned stands disposed."
26. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
8. CIC/CCACH/C/2024/624589 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 12.04.2024 CPIO replied on : 13.05.2024 First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11.06.2024 Page 16 of 67 Information sought:
27. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 12.04.2024 seeking the following information:
"Respected Sir The cause of action for this RTI originate from the enclosed letter issued by the JCIT Tirunelveli Range for hearing in connection with the RTI request bearing ref CBODT/R/E/24/00850 dt 310324 due to improper handling of grievance PMOPG/E/2024/0036647 dt 160224 by the JCIT by assigning to the desk of ITO TIRUNELVELI. I am confident that the JCIT must have gone through the PMOG grievance in detail before assigning it to the ITO Tirunelveli on 290324. The information sought under RTI in qn is not so complicate as the reason recorded for assigning it to the ITO Tirunelveli only sought for as the JCIT Tirunelveli is fully aware of the details which is still lying with the ITO. It is fair enough to expect for redressal of PMOG grievance by his office as JCIT is competent to take decisions on the redressal. As complaint against officers governed by guidelines of disciplinary proceedings the RTI in qn arised vide the above CBODT ref which is in order in all respect. In view of above brief the INFORMATION SOUGHT herewith 1 RTI Section UNDER WHICH JCIT TIRUNELVELI ORDERED FOR MY PRESENCE ON 23042024.
2 PROVIDE ME AN ACTION TAKEN REPORT BY THE JCIT TIRUNELVELI WHO IS COMPETENT TO HANDLE THE COMPLAINT DT 16022024 AS THE GRIEVANCE APPLICATION IS STILL IN THE DESK OF ITO TIRUNELVELI LOCATED IN HIS OFFICE PREMISES"
28. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 13.05.2024 stating as under:
"The Applicant Shri D. Pichaimuthu has filed an Online RTI request vide Registration No: CCACH/R/T/24/00104 dated 15/04/2024 under section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to obtain below information.
As the Applicant is Citizen of India and has paid the Application fee, the information sought by him is provided.
2 Information sought by Applicant "Respected sir The cause of action for this RTI originate from the enclosed letter issued by the JCIT Tirunelveli Range for hearing in connection with the RTI request bearing ref CBODT/R/E/24/00850 dt 310324 due to improper Page 17 of 67 handling of grievance PMOPG/E/2024/0036647 dt 160224 by the JCIT by assigning to the desk of ITO TIRUNELVELI. I am confident that the JCIT must have gone through the PMOG grievance in detail before assigning it to the ITO Tirunelveli on 290324. The information sought under RTI in qn is not so complicate as the reason recorded for assigning it to the ITO Tirunelveli only sought for as the JCIT Tirunelveli is fully aware of the details which is still lying with the ITO. It is fair enough to expect for redressal of PMOG grievance by his office as JCIT is competent to take decisions on the redressal. As complaint against officers governed by guidelines of disciplinary proceedings the RTI in qn arised vide the above CBODT ref which is in order in all respect. In view of the above brief the INFORMATION SOUGHT herewith 1 RTI Section UNDER WHICH JCIT TIRUNELVELI ORDERED FOR MY PRESENCE ON 23042024. 2 PROVIDE ME AN ACTION TAKEN REPORT BY THE JCIT TIRUNELVELI WHO IS COMPETENT TO HANDLE THE COMPLAINT DT 16022024 AS THE GRIEVANCE APPLICATION IS STILL IN THE DESK OF ITO TIRUNELVELI LOCATED IN HIS OFFICE PREMISES ONLY YOURS FAITHFULLY D PITCHAIMUTHU. 2.2 Information Provided:
The information is herewith provided that
1. The Appearance of the Applicant has been requested in the interest of Natural Justice an opportunity being afforded for hearing under sub section (3) of section-5 of Chapter II of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to render reasonable assistance to the persons seeking such information.
2. The Complaint raised on 16/02/2024 pertains to TDS jurisdiction which is not corning under the JCIT, Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli. Therefore no details available in this office.
3. As the requisite information sought by the applicant has been provided the RTI request filed under the RTI Act, 2005 before the undersigned stands disposed."
29. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
9. CIC/CCACH/C/2024/633583 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 11.06.2024 CPIO replied on : 04.07.2024 First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.08.2024 Page 18 of 67 Information sought:
30. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 11.06.2024 seeking the following information:
"THIS HAS REF TO THE ENCLOSURE A DEMAND NOTICE AGAINST TAN NUMBER MRIT02526G WHERE AMOUNT RECOVERABLE WITHIN 30 DAYS NOT COMPLIED WITH, DEFAULT OF WHICH NEARING 90 DAYS WARRANTS THIS RTI INFORMATION SOUGHT 1 NAME AND DESIGNATION OF OFFICER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE AMOUNT DUE IN DEMAND NOTICE WITH APPLICABLE INTEREST AND PENALTY FOR NON COMPLIANCE 2 PROCEEDINGS LINDERTAKEN AFTER 30 DAYS DATE WISE, AGAINST THE OFFENDER -DEFAULTER UNDER IT ACT OR APPLICABLE GUIDELINES 3 IF NO PROCEEDINGS TAKEN AFTER 30 DAYS FOR THE DEFAULT NEARING 90 DAYS REASONS RECORDED FOR NO ACTION OR DELAYED ACTION AGAINST THE DEFAULTER OFFENDER"
31. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 04.07.2024 stating as under:
"Shri D. Pitchaimuthu vide his application under reference cited, requested for certain information regarding tax recovery proceedings against the City Health Officer, Tirunelveli Corporation. His request has been considered carefully and the replies are given as under:
1. Shri K.V. Deepak Tax Recovery Officer, O/o the Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS). Coimbatore
2. The applicant has no official relationship with the City Health Officer, Tirunelveli Corporation. It is also observed that in the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of a third party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any larger public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third party.
Moreover, the information cannot be disclosed under section 8[1][e] of the RTI Act 2005, which exempts the release of information available to a person in a fiduciary relationship unless the competent authority determines that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure. Therefore, in view of the above, the information sought has been denied on the grounds of Section 8(1)(1) & 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Page 19 of 673. The applicant has no official relationship with the City Health Officer. Tirunelveli Corporation. It is also observed that in the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of a third party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any larger public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third party. Moreover, the information cannot be disclosed under section S(1)(c) ) of the RTI Act 2005, which exempts the release of information available to a person in a fiduciary relationship unless the competent authority determines that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure. Therefore, in view of the above, the information sought has been denied on the grounds of Section 8(1)(j) & 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005."
32. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
33. A written submission has been received from Mr. A. Shenbagam, ITO- cum-CPIO/ TDS Ward, vide letter dated 30.06.2025, a copy of which has been sent to the Complainant and the same has been taken on record.
10. CIC/CCACH/C/2024/622296 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 23.03.2024 CPIO replied on : 01.04.2024 First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26.05.2024 Information sought:
34. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 23.03.2024 seeking the following information:
"THIS HAS REF TO THE ENCLOSURE PMOPG/E/2024/0062754 DT 20.03.2024 WHEREIN SH RAMESH CHAND JDIT TPS II HAS CONTENDED THAT THE SUBJECT GRIEVANCE IS NOT A GRIEVANCE AND CLOSED THE APPLICATION BY QUOTING CIT INVESTIGATION COMMENTS. INFORMATION SOUGHT Page 20 of 67 1 COPY OF THE COMMENTS OF CIT INVESTIGATION JUSTIFYING THE GRIEVANCE AS NOT A GRIEVANCE."
35. The CPIO/ Depurty Director of Income tax (Inv.) Chennai transferred the RTI application to Income tax Officer (TDS) Tirunelveli on 01.04.2024 stating as under:
"Shri. D PITCHAIMUTHU has filed an RTI in DGICN/R/T/24/00008 received on 27.03.2024 from the O/o DGIT(Inv.), Chennai. The instant RTI application is seeking information on the subject matter of the CPGRAMS filed earlier.
2. Therefore, the present RTI petition is also forwarded to you u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the information sought may be available in your office."
36. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
11.CIC/CCACH/C/2024/621186 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 19.03.2024 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 18.04.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18.05.2024 Information sought:
37. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 19.03.2024 seeking the following information:
"The cause of action originate from the transfer of grievances application PMOPG E 2024 0034314 dt 13022024 by the ITO WARD 1 TIRUNELVELI also AO of jurisdiction in contravention of their office letter dt 30082023 in responding the grievances id 13314926. ITO TDS vide his letter dt 18012024 advised me to approach the CPC and AO for processing of ITR where refund of RS 5200 involved. ITO WARD 1 fully aware of the issue vide documents on record hence transferring the subject grievances after holding for 10 days not in line with the vision statement of Dept and also not in line with DARPG OM. The subject grievances transferred more than Page 21 of 67 5 times since 13022024 again tfd by ITO WARD 1 to the DIRECTOR system warrants this RTI information sought 1 ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF AO ITO WARD 1 IN PROCESSING THE ITR WHERE REFUND INVOLVED RS5200 2 REASON RECORDED FOR TRANSFERING THE GRIEVANCES AFTER HOLDING FOR 10 DAYS"
38. Having not received any response from CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 18.04.2024. The FAA order is Not on record.
39. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
12.CIC/CCACH/C/2024/631047 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 02.06.2024 CPIO replied on : 13.06.2024 First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20.07.2024 Information sought:
40. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 03-02-2024 seeking the following information:
"This has reference to the enclosure reads about my PMOPG COMPLAINT DATED 16.02.2024 bearing No PMOPG/E/2024/0036647 where the information sought are as below-
1.PROVIDE ME THE COPY OF THE PAGE OF COMPLAINT REGISTER FOR HAVING REGISTERED MY COMPLAINT 2 NAME AND DESIGNATION OF DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY FOR ITO TDS TIRUNELVELI SHRI MAHARAJAN GOMATHINAYAGAM AGAINST WHOM THE COMPLAINT WAS PREFERRED 3 THE ACTION TAKEN REPORT SIGNED BY V R HARI JCIT TDS MADURAI WHETHER IN HIS CAPACITY AS FACT FINDING OFFICER OR DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY OR IN HIS STATUS AS CPIO ONLY.
4 REASON FOR DGIT VIG OR OF ANY OTHER OFFICER OF APPROPRIATE RANK NOT TAKING THE COMPLAINT UNDER THEIR CONTROL FOR ENQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION WHICH BEING THE REASON FOR THE COMPLAINT HAS BEEN PASSED THROUGH DIFFERENT DESK OF OFFICERS FOR THE PAST 100 DAYS.Page 22 of 67
5 NAME AND DESIGNATION OF COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO DEAL WITH SEC 276B CASES FALLING UNDER TIRUNELVELI JURISDICTION."
41. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 13.06.2024 stating as under:
"The online applications vide Regn. No. CCACH/R/T/24/00152, dated 05.06.2024 filed by Shri. D. Pitchaimuthu, M3, Housing Board, Behind SBI, Perumalpuram, Tirunelveli 627 007 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which has been forwarded by the Income Tax Officer (Hars) (Coord), O/o Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, TN & P, Chennai vide email in CHE/COORD/101(20(27)/RTI(145)/2024-25, dated 07.06.2024.
2. The applicant has raised 5 queries out of which query no. 1 & 4 are related to this office:
1. PROVIDE ME THE COPY OF THE PAGE OF COMPLAINT REGISTER FOR HAVING REGISTERED MY COMPLAINT.
4. REASON FOR DGIT VIG OR ANY OTHER OFFICER OF CONTROL FOR ENQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION WHICH BEING THE REASON FOR THE COMPLIANT HAS BEEN PASSED THROUGH DIFFERENT DESK OF OFFICERS FOR THE PAST 100 DAYS.
3. With respect to query no.1, the extract of the complaint No. PMOPG/E/2024/0036647, dated 16.02.2024 registered with the CPGRAMS portal is enclosed herewith.
3.1 With respect to query no.4, the RTI application vide Online Regn. No .CCACH/R/T/24/00071, dated 12.03.2024 regarding Grievance Registration No. PMOPG/E/2024/0036647 received by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Addl. Director of Income Tax (Vig.) (south), Unit-1, Chennai has been forwarded to the Income Tax Officer (Hqrs) (Coord)/Nodal Officer under RTI Act, O/o Pr. CCIT (TN&P), Chennai vide letter in F.No.ADDL.DG(V)(S)/RTI/2023-24, dated 15.03.2024, since the information sought by the applicant pertains to CPGRAMS. Further the RTI application forwarded by the Income Tax Officer(Hars) (Coord), O/o Pr. CCIT (TN&P), Chennai vide letter in CHE-
Page 23 of 67Coord/101(27)/RTI(745)/2022-23, dated 20.03.2024 to the Income Tax Officer(HQ)(PR), O/o Pr. CCIT (TN&P), Chennai and the same was disposed on 04.04.2024.
3.2 Further, the complaints received through CPGRAMS by the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu & Puducherry, who is the Nodal Officer for CPGRAMS, will be transferred to the officers based upon the issue and territorial jurisdiction of the complainant, through the officers as per hierarchy for resolving the grievance.
4. This order is passed with reference to the specific query raised by the applicant in the RTI petition. The RTI application is disposed off accordingly."
42. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
13.CIC/CCACH/C/2024/632465 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 10.06.2024 CPIO replied on : 18.06.2024 First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 29.07.2024 Information sought:
43. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 10.06.2024 seeking the following information:
"THIS HAS REF TO THE ENCLOSURE WHEREIN THE REPLY TO THE APPEAL NOT ACTUALLY UPLOADED AND I AM UNABLE TO KNOW THE REASONS BASED ON WHICH APPEAL DISPOSED OFF. INFORMATION SOUGHT PLEASE PROVIDE THE COPY OF THE REPLY REPORTED AS UPLOADED TO MY APPEAL"
44. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 18.06.2024 stating as under:
Page 24 of 67"The online applications vide Regn. No.CCACH/R/T/24/00156, dated 10.06.2024 filed by Shri. D. Pitchaimuthu, M3, Housing Board, Behind SBI, Perumalpuram, Tirunelveli 627 007 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which has been forwarded by the Income Tax Officer (Hars) (Coord), Olo Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, TN & P, Chennai vide email in CHE/COORD/101(20(27)/RTI(150)/2024-25, dated 10.06.2024.
2. The applicant has requested the following information:
THIS HAS REF TO THE ENCLOSURE WHEREIN THE REPLY TO THE APPEAL NOT ACTUALLY UPLOADED AND I AM UNABLE TO KNOW THE REASONS BASED ON WHICH APPEAL DISPOSED OFF.
INFORMATION SOUGHT PLEASE PROVIDE THE COPY OF THE REPLY REPORTED AS UPLOADED TO MY APPEAL
3. With respect to the above query, the copy of the report as uploaded to the CPGRAMS appeal vide Appeal Number CBODT/E/A/24/000959, dated 06.03.2024 is enclosed herewith for your ready reference.
4. This order is passed with reference to the specific query raised by the applicant in the RTI petition. The RTI application is disposed off accordingly."
45. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
14.CIC/CCACH/C/2024/654959 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 14.10.2024 CPIO replied on : 04.11.2024 First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11.12.2024 Information sought:
46. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 14.10.2024 seeking the following information:Page 25 of 67
"THIS RTI PERTAINING TO ADNL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX VIGILANCE SOUTH UNIT 1 INFORMATION SOUGHT 1 COPY OF THE FINDING REPORT ON THE ALLEGATIONS RAISED AGAINST SHRI MAHARAJAN GOMATHINAYAGAM ITO TDS TIRUNELVELI LEADING TO THE CLOSURE OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST HIM"
47. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 04.11.2024 stating as under:
"The online RTI application filed vide Registration No. CCACH/R/E/24/00138 dated 14/10/2024 by Shri D. Pitchaimuthu of Perumalpuram Tirunelveli Tamilnadu, Pin:627007, was transferred to this Directorate by the ITO(Hqrs) (Coord) O/o the Pr. CCIT, Tamilnadu & Puducherry u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 and the same was received in this Directorate on 14/10/2024.
2. In this regard, the information sought for by the applicant vide RTI application dated 14/10/2024 and the reply are furnished as under:
Information sought by the applicant:
Copy of the finding report on the allegations raised against Shri Maharajan Gomathinayagam ITO TDS Tirunelveli leading to the closure of the complaint against him.
Reply:
The undersigned places reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Central Information Commission, New Delhi (CIC) in F.No. CIC/AB/A/2016/001005 dated 08.09.2017 (N. Balachandran Vs PIO & Vigilance & Dy. Chief Vigilance officer Southern Railway, Chennai) where CIC has adjudicated on similar facts wherein the applicant therein has requested for copy of the enquiry report on closure of a complaint made by him. The CIC directed therein that copy of such enquiry report may be provided to the applicant under section 10 of RTI Act after removing 10(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 redacting such information which falls within the exemption clauses under section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.Page 26 of 67
REPORT "Ms. P. Jaya Gaushika (PAN: BCIPJ9349G) D/o. Shri. D. Pitchaimuthu having her residential address at M3, Housing Board, Behind SBI, Perumalpuram Tirunelveli is working in the office of City Health Officer (CHO), Tirunelvell Corporation, Tirunelveli. The deductor, CHO deducted TDS from the monthly salary of Ms. P. Jaya Gaushika to the tune of Rs.15,600/- for the F.Y.2022-23 and 31,200/- for the financial year 2023-
24. However, the deducted TDS did not reflect in 26AS of Ms. P. Jaya Gaushika.
2. In this regard, an e-nivaran petition was received by the ITO, TDS Ward, Tirunelveli on 06-12-2023. This e-Nivaran petition was filed by Ms. P. Jaya Gaushika before the CPC-TDS vide acknowledgement No. 14942316 on 24-10-2023. The same was pushed to the O/o the ITO, TDS Ward, Tirunelveli on 06-12-2023. Upon receipt of the petition, a letter dated 06-12-2023 was issued to City Health Office, Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation, Tirunelveli (Health Section) to show cause as to why proceedings u/s 201(1)/201(1A) shall not be initiated for the non- compliance of TDS provisions. In view of the recent unprecedented rain that pounded Tirunelveli and flash flood which made the normal life out of order during the last two weeks of December 2023 and first week of January 2024, the office staffs of Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation were engaged in the work related to rescue and remedial operations and hence there was no response to the letter issued dated 06-12-2023. In view of this, proceedings u/s.201(1)/201(1A) was initiated by the AO in respect of Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation, Tirunelveli (Health Section) on 17-01-2024.
All the above actions of the e-nivaran petition have been promptly intimated to Ms. P. Jaya Gaushika vide office letters of the ITO, TDS Ward, Tirunelveli in ITBA/ADM/S/26/2023-24/1058504943(1) dated 06- 12-2023, ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1059460890(1) dated 08-01-2024 and ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1059890511(1) dated 18-01-2024.
3. Later, a CPGRAMS in PMOPG/E/2024/028824 dated 06-02-2024 was filed by Shri. D. Pitchaimuthu, Father of Ms. P. Jaya Gaushika (PAN:
BCIPJ9349G), on behalf of his daughter with the following grievances:Page 27 of 67
(c) Delay in processing of ITR of Ms. P. Jaya Gaushika where refund is involved.
With regard to mismatch in Form 26AS, Immediately on receipt of the e- nivaran petition on 06-12-2023, the ITO, TDS Ward, Tirunelveli had issued letter on the same day to the deductor M/s Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation, Tirunelveli (Health Section) and subsequently initiated appropriate proceedings by issue of notice u/s 201/201(1A) of the IT Act. Sufficient opportunity as per provisions of the IT Act as well as per the principle of Natural Justice was given to the deductor. Consequent to issue of notice, TDS quarterly statements were filed on 10-02-2024 and subsequent correction statement were filed on 13-02-2024 for the F.Yrs. 2022-23 and 2023-24 were filed giving TDS credit of Rs.15,600/- and Rs.31,200/- respectively and the same was reflected in the TRACES portal of Ms. P.Jaya Gaushika. The CPGRAMs was resolved on 21-02-2024 in a span of 15 days with respect to TDS matter.
With regard to Point (c) being delay in processing of ITR where refund is involved, it was submitted that the processing of ITR is under the purview of CPC-ITR, Bengaluru as the TDS-ITO is not empowered to issue refund and hence the matter was escalated to CPC ITR/JAO for issue of refund.
4. It is pertinent here to mention that the ITO, TDS Ward, Tirunelveli had acted on the CPGRAMS quickly, issued notice u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the IT Act and brought the TDS credits to the 26AS of the Individual within a span of 15 days. The ITO, TDS Ward, Tirunelveli has taken utmost care in resolving the issue by escalating it to the personal attention of CHO for filing quarterly statements and correction statement and to CPC for the speedy process of TDS statements filed by the deductor in order to bring the TDS credits in 26AS of the individual.
5. (Redacted)
6. In spite of the speedy action of Shri Maharajan Gomathinayagam, ITO, TDS Ward, Tirunelveli, the petitioner Shri D. Pitchaimuthu had been filing various petitions under CPGRAMS, RTI and Grievances for action against the ITO for handling the CPGRAMS in a casual manner and not issuing Page 28 of 67 notice u/s 276B of the IT Act thereby diluting the issue and biased act in favour of employer.
As per section 276B of the IT Act, "if a person fails to pay to the credit of the Central Government, the tax deducted at source by him as required by or -----------under for ready reference:
* In Government Accounting System, each DDO who is responsible for tax deduction at source (TDS) is allotted a TAN and he is responsible for filing of TDS Statements like Form 24Q and Form 26Q..
*Each DDO reports to a Pay and Accounts Officer (PAO)/District Treasury Officer (DTO)/ Cheque Drawing and Disbursing Officer (CDDO) (hereinafter mentioned as Accounts Officer). These persons are allotted AINS (Account Office Identification Numbers) *The information regarding TDS deducted against payments is passed on by the DDO who holds the TAN to the Accounts Officer who holds the AIN.
*The Accounts Officer makes book entry for the transfer of TDS credit to the account of the Central Government by filing Form 24G every month as per ITD Notification no. 41/2010 dated 31 May 2010 using the Accounts Office Identification Number (AIN).
*After filing of Form 24G, Book Adjustment Identification Number (BIN) is generated for each DDO.
*Using the BIN (Book Adjustment Identification Number), the DDO files quarterly TDS/TCS statements in Form Nos. 24Q/26Q/270/27EQ (as may be applicable).
*Income Tax Department processes the TDS/TCS statements filed by the DDO, quarterly, and passes on the TDS/TCS credit (as per the quarterly TDS/TCS Statements in FormNos.240/260/270/27EQ filed by the DDOs to the PAN holders relating to whom the tax has been supposedly deducted/collected. The said tax credits are thereafter reflected in Form 26AS/Annual Tax Statement of the PAN holder.Page 29 of 67
In this case, since it is a Government deductor, the TDS credits are credited to the Government account on the same day as it is done through book adjustments. There is no default of TDS non remittances and hence, the question of invoking section 2768 of the IT Act does not arise.
7. The petitioner has been informed several times that "Provisions of section 2768 does not attract as City Health Office is functioning under Department of Health, Government of Tamil Nadu and the salary payments the petitions were promptly attended and redressed by Shri. Maharajan Gomathinayagam in timely manner. There has been no laxity on the department side.
In view of the discussions as in previous paragraphs, it is submitted that undue delay, administrative lapse or any vigilance angle cannot be attributed to the actions taken by Shri. Maharajan Gomathinayagam, ITO, TDS Tirunelveli. The report is submitted for kind perusal."
3. The complaint of the applicant was closed by the competent authority after consideration of the factual report as there was no vigilance angle attributable to the actions taken by Shri Maharajan Gomathinayagam, ITO, TDS, Tirunelveli.
4. The RTI application is disposed of accordingly."
48. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
49. A written submission has been received from Shri Keerthi Narayan P., CPIO-cum-JDIT, vide letter dated 25.06.2025, a copy of which has been sent to the Complainant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"2. The RTI application dated 14/10/2024 of Shri D. Pitchaimuthu of Tirunelveli was disposed of by the CPIO & Addl. DIT(V)(S), Unit-1, Chennai vide Order u/s dated 04/11/2024.
3. The appellant in the appeal filed before the Commission has enclosed a copy of letter dated 09.11.2024 addressed to the Appellate Authority (First Appellate Authority). However, as per the records of the Pr. Additional Director General (Vigilance) (South) [First Appellate Authority], no such letter has been received Page 30 of 67 in the Directorate. Further, in the Notice of Hearing cited in reference above, there are no details under the Column 'Date of 1st Appeal made, if any' and 'Date of order, if any, of First AA'. Hence, the fact that, the appellant has not filed his first appeal before the First Appellate Authority is clear from the Notice.
4. As per S.No.18 of FAQ in the CIC Website (extract enclosed), first appeal before the First Appellate Authority should be filed before moving the second appeal before the Commission and if a second appeal is filed without filing a first appeal, the same is liable to be returned.
5. In view of the above, it is requested that the appeal of the appellant may be returned."
15.CIC/CCITB/C/2024/623528 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 05.04.2024 CPIO replied on : 11.05.2024 First appeal filed on : Not on record First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 04.06.2024 Information sought:
50. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 05.04.2024 seeking the following information:
"The enclosure is self explanatory where the system charged interest upto 010424 despite the mismatched amount Rs15600 remitted by the employer on 13th and 14th feb2024 which the system has also absorbed as fully matched as against the claim made in the ITR. IT is immaterial how many segments are working under the CPC and the ultimate authority who is responsible for in making correction while setling the refund Rs5200 involved in the case. The omission to correct the issue a major cotributing factor leading to complecating the issue more and more warrants this RTI. INFORMATION SOUGHT 1 MENTION THE SECTION OF IT ACT OR ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES ENABLING THE CPC TO CHARGE INTEREST EVEN AFTER MISMATCHED AMOUNT REMITTED ON 13TH AND 14TH FEB24.
2 MENTION THE SECTION OF IT ACT OR ADM GUIDELINES ENABLING THE CPC TO KEEP THE TAX PAYER UNDER DEFAULTER LIST ILLEGALY SINCE 25THJULY 2023 WHERE THE OFFENCE OF NOT REMITTING TDS REST WITH THE EMPLOYER ONLY BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF ITO OF TIRUNELVELI VIDE LETTER DT 030823 WHICH IS ALSO WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF ITO TDS OF TIRUNELVELI AS PER HIS LETTER 06122023."Page 31 of 67
51. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 11.05.2024 stating as under:
"The RTI application Vide Registration No. CCACH/R/T/24/00093, dated 05.04.2024 was received in this office on 12.04.2024 on transfer from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income tax, Tamilnadu & Puducherry, Chennai. In the application, the applicant has sought the following information:
(i) Mention the section of IT Act or administrative guidelines enabling the CPC to charge Interest even after mismatched amount remitted on 13th and 14th Feb24.
(ii) Mention the section of IT Act or administrative guidelines enabling the CPC to keep the taxpayer under defaulter list illegally since 25th July 2023 where the offence of not remitting TDS rest with the employer only brought to the notice of ITO of Tirunelveli vide letter dt 030823 which is also within the knowledge of ITO TDS of Tirunelveli as per his letter 06122023.
2. The RTI application is disposed as under.
With reference to the above questions, it is informed that the information sought is in the form of seeking clarification/ an 'opinion' or 'interpretation' of the intent of the Legislature in charging interest on outstanding demand and treating the applicant as defaulter. In this regard, it is also informed that the CPIO is not required to make an interpretation of the Income Tax Act/Rules or provide an 'opinion' nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' to an applicant. The CPIO is also not obliged to furnish information which requires drawing of inferences and / or making of assumptions. In this connection, attention of the applicant is drawn to the order in the case of Jigyesh Sharma Vs CPIO, O/o. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru in F.No.CIC/DGITS/A/2021/648486 dated 10.10.2022, wherein the Hon'ble CIC has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBSE Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011), by citing Para 35 therein, which clarifies the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In view of the above, the request of the applicant cannot be acceded to.
Without prejudice to the above, it is also informed that the applicant's Income tax return had been processed and results of processing were communicated to the applicant vide intimation dated 25.07.2023 under section 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961. As on the date of processing of the applicant's ITR, the credit for Rs. 15,600/- was not available and accordingly demand was raised.
Page 32 of 67The reason for the same is also evident from the above application wherein it has been mentioned that the "mismatched amount of Rs. 15,600/-remitted by the employer on 13th and 14th feb 2024" which is much later than the date of processing. However, the applicant can file online rectification for obtaining the refund, eligible if any, for the assessment year 2023-24."
52. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
53. A written submission has been received from Shri B. Vaidyanath, CPIO- cum-ITO, vide letter dated 01.07.2025, a copy of which has been sent to the Complainant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"2. The following is submitted for the kind consideration of the Hon'ble CIC:
The appellant, Mr. D. Pitchaimuthu, had filed an online application vide registration no. CCACH/R/T/24/00093 dated 05.04.2024 under the RTI Act. The application was received in this office on 12.04.2024 on transfer under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income tax, Tamilnadu & Puducherry, Chennai. In the application, the appellant had sought the following information:
(i) Mention the section of IT Act or administrative guidelines enabling the CPC to charge Interest even after mismatched amount remitted on 13th and 14th Feb, 2024.
(ii) Mention the section of IT Act or administrative guidelines enabling the CPC to keep the taxpayer under defaulter list illegally since 25th July 2023 where the offence of not remitting TDS rest with the employer only brought to the notice of ITO of Tirunelveli vide letter dt 03.08.2023 which is also within the knowledge of ITO TDS of Tirunelveli as per his letter 06.12.2023.
2.1. The CPIO, vide order under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act dated 08.05.2024 disposed the RTI application. The order passed u/s 7(1) of the RTI Act on 08.05.2024 was despatched to the address provided in the RTI application on 08.05.2024. Vide the order, it was informed to the applicant as under:
"With reference to the above questions, it is informed that the information sought is in the form of seeking clarification/ an 'opinion' or 'interpretation' of the intent of the Legislature in charging interest on outstanding demand and treating the applicant as defaulter. In this regard, it is also informed that the CPIO is not required to make an interpretation of the Income Tax Act/Rules or provide an 'opinion' nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion to an applicant. The CPIO is also not obliged to furnish information which requires drawing of inferences and / or making of assumptions. in this connection, attention of the applicant is drawn to the order in the case of ligyesh Sharma Vs CPIO, O/o. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru in F.No. CIC/DGITS/A/2021/648486 dated 10.10.2022, wherein the Hon'ble CIC has Page 33 of 67 placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBSE Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011), by citing Para 35 therein, which clarifies the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In view of the above, the request of the applicant cannot be acceded to. Without prejudice to the above, it is also informed that the applicant's Income tax return had been processed and results of processing were communicated to the applicant vide intimation dated 25.07.2023 under section 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961. As on the date of processing of the applicant's ITR, the credit for Rs.15,600/- was not available and accordingly demand was raised. The reason for the same is also evident from the above application wherein it has been mentioned that the "mismatched amount of Rs.15,600/-remitted by the employer on 13th and 14th Feb 2024" which is much later than the date of processing. However, the applicant can file online rectification for obtaining the refund, eligible if any, for the assessment year 2023-24."
2.2. With regard to filing appeal before first appellate authority, as per records of the CPC(ITR), Bengaluru, the applicant is found to have filed appeal with the Income Tax Officer (HQrs) (Coord) in Office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamilnadu & Puducherry through email on 06.05.2024. The appeal of the applicant was received by the First Appellate Authority i.e. Joint Director of Income Tax, Unit-4, CPC, Bengaluru on transfer on 13.05.2025. The contents of the appeal are as under:
"I SUBMIT HEREWITH THE FIRST APPEAL FOR THE DEFAULT UNDER RTI ACT THIS FIRST APPEAL MEANT FOR PLACING BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY."
The first appellate authority vide order under section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, dated 11.06.2024 dismissed the appeal of the appellant stating that there are no specific grounds which need to be adjudicated. The FAA also observed that the appellant is seeking to use the appellate forum as a litigant tool which is not within the ambit of the Act and there is nothing in the appeal which shows that there has been failure on the part of the CPIO, CPC, Bengaluru in the case of the appellant as the information sought for in the application has been furnished within the meaning of the RTI Act
3. As per the enclosures to the notice of hearing under reference, the applicant had filed second appeal before the Hon'ble Central Information Commission on 04.06.2024 with the following grounds of appeal:
"(a) The cry of the dept refund settled becomes true only at the moment actual receipt of refund of Rs.5200
(b) Sec 143 becomes inoperative once the tax payer submitted undisputable documents to the dept to their satisfaction on 01.08.2023. ITO TDS issued notice on 06.12.2023(after 120 days) indicate their responsiveness towards tax payer interest. charging Interest after set a righting the mismatched amount should be backed with reasons in writing and the written brief will constitute an information. CPC is the competent authority answerable to the tax payer and for anything and everything sec 2f of decided case can't be invoked as reply to RTI.
Charging interest after adjusting the mismatch without written brief is coming under the purview of unreasoned act on the part of officer concerned and for Page 34 of 67 unreasoned act CPC can't hide themselves under the sec 2F of RTI Act. If no written brief for unreasoned act it amounts to abuse of power a major misconduct under service rules, Hence invoking sec 2f of the RTI Act by the CPIO of CPC is unsustainable under RTI Act.
EXHIBIT 4 ITO LR DT 06.12.2023 unilateral declaration-fully resolved.
(c) Likewise once the mismatched amount is settled the tax payer status as defaulter get automatically changed by processing the return by the CPC as the right to correct rest with them only.
(d) Having failed to do the job in the normal course of day to day affairs attempting to interpreting the information sought under RTI Act in different concept indicate the deriliction of duty on their part. CPC should be in a position to provide the reason for an indifferent status of tax payer reflecting in the website which won't coming under the concept claimed by the CPIO of CPC in his reply.
(e) CPC duty bound to answer the status of the return and for indifferent status from the one it should be, responsibility is absolute which can't be misconceived under sec 2F of RTI Act. in brief, if for all omissions of officers section 2 F is invoked for taking shelter the wheel of administration will collapse and the sec 2 F can't be used as a tool for that.
(1) Employer identified as an offender under I.T act as per enclosure which has relevance to settlement/non settlement of refund due to the manner in which the amount collected appropriated
(g) Dept acting as a profit oriented ORGC by charging penalty from employer and interest from tax payer for the default of employer as per the enclosure is a illegal practice on the part of the CPC
(h) Officers acting at their own style in their deciding not based on income tax act or administrative guidelines, being the reason for not furnishing reply to RTI
(i) Gross misunderstanding the concept default vs demand and default by employer has been taken as a default of employee & after giving all sort of stress for quite long period, querries if any will be dealt with by taking shelter under RTI Act, that too by dragging irrelevant cases on record. The issue resolvable during the normal course itself dragged for an year by the dept indicate deriliction of duty, non compliance of govt guidelines on the part of officers
(j) The PMOPG PORTAL grievance dt 13.02.2023 addressed to the CPC is under the lock and custody of director of IT., CPC which being the most appropriate reason the CPIO has comfortably refused information under RTI Act. EXHIBIT 5 PMOPG COMPLAINT COPY UINDER THE SAFE CUSTODY OF DIT CPC 6 DARPG OM 7 TAX PAYERS CHARTER 8 CBODT OM DT 11.03.2016
(k) There is no proper checks and balances in the dept whenever there is a deriliction of duty on the part of officers which being the reason for either giving false statement to the tax payers or inaction on the issues before them. EXHIBIT 9 defaulter as on date with upto date interest.
(l) The approach of the dept and officers are not clean as observed from the refusal of information on the basis of unwritten codes against the interest of tax Page 35 of 67 payer's charter & the principles of fair practices, I submit a corrective measure is inevitable as prayed below EXHIBIT 10 TDS correction stat for FYR 2022-23 employer an offender under LT. act PRAYER SOUGHT
1. Disciplinary action against the CPIO, CPC, Bangaluru under sec 20(2) of RTI act
2. Please levy appropriate Penalty under sec 20(1) of RTI act."
4. In the light of the above discussions, the following submission in respect of the issues pertaining to this office is respectfully made before the Hon'ble CIC. 4.1 The applicant had sought information on two issues, which according to him are falling under the ambit of information as per the RTI Act, 2005. From the queries raised, the same are observed not falling within the ambit of information and are falling under the scope of "seeking interpretation on the issue of law". Accordingly, the application has been rejected by the CPIO by providing the reasons. However, information to the extent to be provided has also been provided to the applicant even though the same is already made available in the departmental communications.
4.2. The first appeal of the applicant has been rejected by the First Appellate Authority for the same reasons. It is also noted by the FAA that the applicant is seeking to use the appellate forum as a litigant tool which is not within the ambit of the RTI Act, 2005.
4.3 In the present appeal, the applicant has made some assumptions and is seeking action from the CIC, based on such assumptions. These assumptions are neither arising from the facts on record nor relatable to the issue at hand. Some of the assumptions may be falling under the ambit of appeal under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or appeal against the grievance resolution and appeal under the RTI Act, 2005 cannot be invoked as a replacement for these appeals. In view of the above, it is informed that the RTI application filed by the applicant had been disposed in terms of the RTI Act, 2005 without any mala fide intention."
16.CIC/CUSCZ/C/2024/629573/CCACH Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 21.05.2024
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 : 11.07.2024
Information sought:
Page 36 of 67
54. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 21.05.2024 seeking the following information:
"Sir I submit no action taken on my complaint preferred through PMOPG dt 160224 addressed to the DGIT VIG for the omissions on the part of ITO TDS TIRUNELVELI and the complaint is presently sleeping in the desk of ITO-JAO WARD 1 of TIRUNELVELI for more than 45 days. The refund claimed vide ITR 23-24 not yet settled due to the omissions of ITO TDS TIRUNELVELI for not invoking sec 276b against the employer. TDS deduction a mandatory obligation on the part of employer and for any lapses any interest and penalty cannot be loaded in the ITR of tax payer. This being the cause for this RTI where you can observe interest charged u/s 234c in the ITR of taxpayer for the lapses on the part of employer who failed to remit TDS to the Govt account as per schedule. The fact of omission on the part of my employer PUBLIC AUTHORITY is well within the knowledge of ITO TDS TIRUNELVELI ITO JAO WARD 1 TIRUNELVELI as well the JCIT of TIRUNELVELI. The context need RTI and the information sought as below 1REASON FOR LOADING INTEREST IN MY ITR FOR THE LAPSES ON THE PART OF MY EMPLOYER A PUBLIC AUTHORITY WHO IS HAVING MANDATORY OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TDS AND TO REMIT TO GOVT AS PER SCHEDULE 2 AS THE LAPSES ON THE PART OF MY EMPLOYER IS WELL WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF ITO TDS TIRUNELVELI ITO JAO TIRUNELVELI JCIT TIRUNELVELI REASON FOR NOT PREVENTING THE LOADING OF INTEREST FACTOR U/S 234C VIDE APPROPRIATE NOTE TO CPC PLEASE BE PROVIDED.
YOURS FAITHFULLY D PITCHAIMUTHU PS THE VERY REASON FOR ROUTING THE RTI THROUGH CBODT IS THE PMOPG COMPLAINT DT 16022024 NOT REDRESSED BY TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE ITO TDS TIRUNELVELI"
55. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
17.CIC/CCITB/C/2024/639038 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 03.07.2024 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record Page 37 of 67 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 02.09.2024 Information sought:
56. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 03.07.2024 seeking the following information:
"This RTI pertains to CPC Bangalore kindly refer the enclosure and also the complaint closed today PMOPG E 2024 0036647 DT 16022024 wherein in both cases the date of action modified as 27062024 The date has been modified with fradulant intention warrants this RTI as the name of officer with whom it is pending for the past 3 months not get changed INFORMATION SOUGHT 1 PLEASE PROVIDE THE NAME AND DESIGNATION OF THE FRAUDSTER WHO IS THE AUTHOR OF THIS IDEOLOGY TO CHEAT THE TAX PAYER COMPLAINANT DEPT GOVT AND THE SOCIETY AS A WHOLE 2 PLEASE PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF THIS VIRAL ATTACKS APPLIED IN CPGRAMS PMOPG PORTAL FOR THE PAST TWO MONTHS WHERE THE BLESSINGS OF COMPETENT AUTHORITY IS INEVITABLE AS THIS SORT OF ACTION IS IMPOSSIBLE BY ANY OFFICER SINGLY.
3 KINDLY PROVIDE THE RECOMMENDED NOTE TO CBODT FOR THE CLOSURE OF PMOPG COMPLAINT PMOPG E 2024 0036647 DT 16022024"
57. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
58. A written submission has been received from Shri B. Vaidyanath, CPIO- cum-ITO, vide letter dated 30.06.2025, a copy of which has been sent to the Complainant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"2.1. The CPIO, vide order under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act dated 01.08.2023 disposed the RTI application. The order disposing the application filed under the RTI Act,2005 was made available on the RTI MIS portal within time limit which is visible as per the RTI MIS portal. Vide the order, it was informed to the applicant as under:
The requested information as sought by the applicant is pertaining to PAN: BCIPJ93496 which is a third party as per records of the Centralised Processing Centre and hence the request of the applicant was rejected invoking the provisions of 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005 inviting the attention of the applicant to the section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005 and relying on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Shri Vinubhai Haribhai Patel Vs Page 38 of 67 Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, dated 27.01.2021 in C/LPA/1169/2016 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Girish Ramachandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors (SLP No.27734 of 2012), dated 03.10.2012.
It had also been informed that from the contents of the RTI application it was seen that the same are in the nature of redressal of grievances. In this connection, it is informed that grievance redressal is beyond the scope of the RTI Act. The scope of the RTI Act is limited to provisioning of 'information" defined under the Act by the CPIO on an application made by a citizen for the purpose, subject to the other provisions thereof.
2.2. With regard to filing appeal before first appellate authority, as per records of the CPC(ITR), Bengaluru, the applicant is found to have filed appeal against the order of the CPIO-CPC(ITR), Bengaluru before the First Appellate Authority i.e. Joint Director of Income Tax, Unit-4, CPC, Bengaluru on 02.08.2024. The contents of the appeal are as under:
"DUE TO DEFAULT UNDER RTI ACT. FIRST APPEAL PREFERRED AS PER ENCLSOURES. PLEASE PROVIDE THE INFORMATION SOUGHT"
The First Appellate Authority (the FAA) vide order under section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, dated 30.08.2024 dismissed the appeal of the appellant stating that the grounds of appeal are devoid of merits. The FAA also observed as under:
The CPIO had furnished/responded to the information sought for within time limit. The FAA further observed that the PAN pertaining to which the information sought for is not that of the appellant but is relating to a third party. The CPIO had responded rightly to the request of information pertaining to a third party based on the provisions of the RTI Act and the judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court and High Court in the matter. The appellant is seeking to use the appellate forum as a litigant tool which is not within the ambit of the Act and there is nothing in the appeal which shows that there has been failure on the part of the CPIO, CPC, Bengaluru in the case of the appellant as the information sought for in the application has been furnished within the meaning of the RTI Act.
3 As per the enclosures to the notice of hearing under reference, the applicant had filed second appeal before the Hon'ble Central Information Commission on 02.09.2024 with the following grounds for complaint:
"Fradulant act: Having committed a fradulant act in the CPGRAMS portal of govt the CPC officials have no local standy to invoke RTI sections as defence for their omissions on record.
Accountability of official The material alteration in the date will change its original status where the complainant has to suffer more to prove it on record hence the act of CPC is detrimental to the interest of applicant arising due to abuse of power by CPC officials Dishonest motive The CPC has closed the complaint on 01.08.2024 stating that the issue was settled by ITO Tirunelveli vide MOU dt 15.07.2024 speaks the role of CPC in the Page 39 of 67 issue for more than 160 days is nil and they are holding the grievance application just to teach lesson to the complainant is against the guidelines of DARPG. The MOU arrived by the ITO Tirunelveli is of half page-LKG work whereas the CPC deliberately holding the grievances beyond 160 days speaks the credibility of their office.
Habitual offender It is something exceptional knowingly indulging in daring acts of this sort of alteration where the minimum number of officers required is two or more depending upon the design of the software. Hence by all means there is a reason to believe of doing this sort of practices is an ongoing/habitual on the part of CPC officials. This being the reason for my request for second information under RTI. Further in my case alone CPC has altered the date in two applications which doubly ensured my conception as true. Abuse of power vs unwritten guidelines It is evident from the omissions of CPC officials that they are doing their jobs not on the basis of any written guidelines of govt and also on the basis of dept guidelines. Hence we can conclude their acts are well within the offence of abuse of official power only detrimental to the interest of complainant and also to the image of the govt. CPC officials recklessly acted in the issue prompting them to take shelter under RTI Sec's not relevant to the context just to safeguard their personal interest.
Fradulant alterations made in my grievance applications The third information requested is about two applications rejected without speaking order both representing my name only where CPC deliberately dragging RTI sections into the scene is just to hide the reality of the issue as observed from the reply. CPIO keeping utmost silence about the core issue fradulant alteration made in the CPGRAMS portal Outcome of first appeal There is no response from the FAA I humbly submit the CPIO of CPC simply ignored the core issue of the RTI deliberati dragging RTI section into the scenario is not in order further CPC is under the impression that their power is supreme than any guiding principles of their dept/govt and they are considering their abuse of power as a legalised licence to do any act detrimental to the interest of tax payers /dept/govt/society as a whole.
Agrieved with the refusal of information I hereby submit my prayer as below Prayer
1. Disciplinary action against the CPIO, Income Tax Officer CPC, Bangalore under sec 20(2) of RTI act
2. Prayer for levying appropriate penalty under sec 20(1) of RTI act for denial of information sought"
4, In the light of the above discussions, the following submission is respectfully made before the Hon'ble CIC.
The CPGRAMS portal is maintained by the Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances (DARPG), Government of India, data on which Page 40 of 67 cannot be tampered with by anybody. The flow of a grievance depicts the comments of each office handling the grievance as per their role in redressal of said grievance. The time to respond to a particular grievance would depend on the nature of the grievance. The grievance under consideration had reached this office on 11.03.2024 and same was disposed as per the role of CPC(ITR) on 14.03.2024 as per the role of CPC at the given time. The same is evident from the history of given grievance on CPGRAMS portal.
Under the third point of the RTI application, the applicant had sought information on the closure of CPGRAM bearing no. PMOPG/E/24/0036647, dated 16.02.2024. On perusal of the contents of said complaint, it is observed that redressal of the same pertains to income tax refund matter of Dr Jayagaushika, a third party in terms of the RTI Act, 2005. Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, 2005 defines the term "Third Party" as 'a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority. Further, relying on the provisions of section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sri Girish Rarnachandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors (SLP No.27734 of 2012), dated 03.10.2012 and Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Shri Vinubhai Haribhai Patel Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, dated 27.01.2021 in C/LPA/1169/2016, the request of the applicant cannot be acceded to.
As per records of CPC, Bengaluru, it is observed that the First Appellate Authority has disposed the appeal of the applicant vide order under section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 in file no. RTI/APPEAL/27/2024-25 dated 30.08.2025 and the same had been uploaded on the RTI MIS portal. It is further informed that on perusal of the contents of the information sought in the RTI application as well as grounds of complaint before the Hon'ble Central Information Commission, it is observed that the applicant is appearing to use the RTI as a litigant tool which is not within the ambit of the RTI Act, 2005. Without prejudice to the above, it is informed that the status of grievance of non-issue of refund to the applicant's daughter for the assessment year 2023-24 can be responded to the tax payer concerned.
In view of the above, it is informed that the RTI application filed by the applicant had been disposed in terms of the RTI Act, 2005, provisions of section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and various judicial pronouncements."
18.CIC/CCITB/C/2024/639662 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 02.07.2024
Page 41 of 67
CPIO replied on : 02.08.2024
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.09.2024 Information sought:
59. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 02.07.2024 seeking the following information:
"THIS RTI PERTAINS TO CPC BANGALORE, THIS HAS REF TO THE ENCLOSURE WHEREFROM THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION REQUESTED 1 NUMBER OF OCCASIONS WITH DATES RECTIFICATION RIGHTS HAVE BEEN TRANSFERED TO YOUR AO TO DO CORRECTION IN RESPECT OF ITR PERTAINING TO BCIPJ9349G 2 DATE ON WHICH YOUR CPC CAME TO KNOW THE APPARENT MISMATCH OR MISTAKE IS DUE TO THE DEFAULT ON THE PART OF DECUCTOR HAVING FAILED TO REMIT TDS AS PER SCHEDULE FOR BCIPJ9349G.
3 PROCESS NOTE RECEIVED BY YOUR OFFICE FOR RECTIFICATION OF ITR BEFORE AND AFTER THE MISMATCHED AMOUNT WAS REFLECTED IN 26AS FROM ITO TDS TIRUNELVELI ITO JAO TIRUNELVELI OR FROM OTHER OFFICERS OF YOUR DEPT IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR JURICDICTION TDS RANGE OR OTHERWISE 4 DATE FROM WHICH TAX PAYER REQUEST FOR RECTIFICATION OF ITR PENDING WITH YOUR CPC EXCLUDING THIS PRESENT REJECTION. 5 PASS ON THIS MESSAGE OF REJECTION TOOK 44 DAYS NOT IN LINE WITH GOVT GUIDELINES WARRANTS CLARITY WHETHER CPC IS SUPREME THAN THE GOVT GUIDELINES"
60. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 02.08.2024 stating as under:
"The RTI application, with Registration No.DGITS/R/T/24/00632, dated 03.07.2024, was received in this office on 03.07.2024 on transfer under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. In the application, the applicant has sought the following information:
1 NUMBER OF OCCASIONS WITH DATES RECTIFICATION RIGHTS HAVE BEEN TRANSFERED TO YOUR AO TO DO CORRECTION IN RESPECT OF ITR PERTAINING TO BCIPJ9349G.Page 42 of 67
2 DATE ON WHICH YOUR CPC CAME TO KNOW THE APPARENT MISMATCH OR MISTAKE IS DUE TO THE DEFAULT ON THE PART OF DECUCTOR HAVING FAILED TO REMIT TDS AS PER SCHEDULE FOR BCIPJ9349G.
3 PROCESS NOTE RECEIVED BY YOUR OFFICE FOR RECTIFICATION OF ITR BEFORE AND AFTER THE MISMATCHED AMOUNT WAS REFLECTED IN 26AS FROM ITO TDS TIRUNELVELI ITO JAO TIRUNELVELI OR FROM OTHER OFFICERS OF YOUR DEPT IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR JURICDICTION TDS RANGE OR OTHERWISE.
4 DATE FROM WHICH TAX PAYER REQUEST FOR RECTIFICATION OF ITR PENDING WITH YOUR CPC EXCLUDING THIS PRESENT REJECTION. 5 PASS ON THIS MESSAGE OF REJECTION TOOK 44 DAYS NOT IN LINE WITH GOVT GUIDELINES WARRANTS CLARITY WHETHER CPC IS SUPREME THAN THE GOVT GUIDELINES.
2. The RTI application is disposed as under.
With reference to the information sought, it is informed that the information sought is the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the request is liable to be rejected invoking the provisions of Section 8(1)(e) & 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
It may be mentioned here that the information on matters pertaining to income returns etc., of any taxpayer, is held by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, in its fiduciary capacity and treated as confidential. Kind attention is invited to Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act which reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the matter of Girish Ramachandra Deshpande (SLP No.27734 of 2012) has held that the information relating to Income tax matters of an assessee is personal information which stands exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act. In the application, nothing is found to establish the larger public interest is involved in seeking this information. Therefore, the undersigned is not Page 43 of 67 satisfied that larger public interest warranting disclosure of the information has been sought by the applicant.
In this connection, attention of the applicant is invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shri Vinubhai Haribhai Patel Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax dated 27.01.2021 in C/LPA/1169/2016 wherein, vide para no.14, it has been held that only the larger public interest, duly established with relevant material, can override this confidentiality of the information and documents available with the Income Tax Department. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has further held that the provisions of the RTI Act are not meant to allow the parties to collect evidence from such Departments or Public Authorities to sub-serve their private interest.
In view of the above, the request of the applicant is rejected, invoking the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act."
61. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
62. A written submission has been received from Shri B. Vaidyanath, CPIO- cum-ITO, vide letter dated 30.06.2025, a copy of which has been sent to the Complainant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"2. The following is submitted for the kind consideration of the Hon'ble CIC:
The appellant, Mr. D.Pitchaimuthu, had filed an online application vide reference no. CCITB/R/T/24/00174 on 03.07.2024 under the RTI Act. The application, with registration no. DGITS/R/T/24/00632, was received in this office through RTI MIS portal on transfer under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 on 08.07.2024. In the application, the appellant had sought the following information:
"1. Number of occasions with dates Rectification Rights have been transfered to your AO to do correction in respect of ITR pertaining to BCIPJ9349G.
2. Date on which your CPC came to know the apparent mismatch or mistake is due to the default on the part of decuctor having failed to remit TDS as per schedule for BCIPJ9349G.Page 44 of 67
3. Process Note received by your office for Rectification of ITR before and after the mismatched amount was reflected in 26SAS from ITO TDS Tirunelveli ITO JAO Tirunelveli or from other Officers of your Dept irrespective of their juricdiction TDS Range or otherwise.
4. Date from which Tax Payer Request for rectification of ITR pending with your CPC excluding this present rejection.
5. Pass on this message of rejection took 44 days not in line with Govt Guidelines warrants clarity whether CPC is supreme than the Govt Guidelines."
2.1. The CPIO, vide order under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act disposed the RTI application on 01.08.2024. Vide the order, it was informed to the applicant that the requested information as sought by the applicant is pertaining to PAN:
BCIPJ9349G which is a third party as per records of the Centralised Processing Centre and hence the request of the applicant was rejected invoking the provisions of 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 inviting the attention of the applicant to the section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005 and relying on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Shri Vinubhal Haribhai Patel Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, dated 27.01.2021 in C/LPA/1169/2016 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Girish Ramachandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors (SLP No.27734 of 2012), dated
03.10.2012. The order disposing the application filed under the RTI Act, 2005 was made available on the RTI MIS portal within time limit which is visible as per the RTI MIS portal.
2.2. With regard to filing appeal by the applicant before first appellate authority, as per records of the CPC(ITR), Bengaluru, the applicant is found to have filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority i.e. Joint Director of Income Tax, Unit-4, CPC, Bengaluru on 02.08.2024.
The contents of the appeal are as under:
"DUE TO DEFAULT UNDER RTI ACT. FIRST APPEAL PREFERRED AS PER ENCLSOURES.
PLEASE PROVIDE THE INFORMATION SOUGHT."
The First Appellate Authority (the FAA) vide order under section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, dated 30.08.2024 dismissed the appeal of the appellant stating that the grounds of appeal are devoid of merits. The FAA also observed as under:
The CPIO had furnished / responded to the information sought for within time limit.
The FAA further observed that the PAN pertaining to which the information sought for is not that of the appellant but is relating to a third party. The CPIO Page 45 of 67 had responded rightly to the request of information pertaining to a third party based on the provisions of the RTI Act and the judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court and High Court in the matter. The appellant is seeking to use the appellate forum as a litigant tool which is not within the ambit of the Act and there is nothing in the appeal which shows that there has been failure on the part of the CPIO, CPC, Bengaluru in the case of the appellant as the information sought for in the application has been furnished within the meaning of the RTI Act.
3. As per the enclosures to the notice of hearing under reference, the applicant had filed second appeal before the Hon'ble Central Information Commission on 05.09 2024 with the following grounds for complaint:
(1) Having adviced me to file application for rectification subsequent rejection of request by dragging RTI Sec is not in order (11) Dishonest statement by CPC: It is evident from the enclosure the closure of functionality for rectification for 2022-23 is the reason for the delay in settlement of issues whereas the CPC instead of disclosing their inability searching for reason under the RTI Sec is not in order.
(10) The information sought has no relevance with that of tax payer's income tax return or of personal in nature. The non functionality of any service (rectification of (TR) is pertaining to public at large will affect the settlement of refund issues pending with CPC Bangaluru for the whole year. Hence CPC's misconception of my request is not in order indicates lack of application of mind only.
(iv) Enclosures reveals the refund issue is pending with CPC since August 2023 date on which supportive documents for TDS deduction submitted to ITO, Tirunelveli & CPC
(v) The lazyness on the part of CPC itself is a record to infer there won't be any process note on hand for rectification of ITR before the mismatch was settled.
CPC is very cool in handling the refund issue even after the mismatch was settled as observed from the confirmation enclosed where they took 5 months even to reject the request for rectification indicate their commitment towards tax payers
(vi) CPC Bangalore is supreme in mindset as they are having their own unwritten code for functioning in settling issues of tax payers and never bothered about DARPG or internal guidelines TAT in settlement of refund issues. This sort of big brother attitude on the part of CPC needs checks from Hon' Commission in the interest of society as a whole.
Page 46 of 67(vil) The information sought are not of personal information of tax payer and disclosure though beneficial to the tax payer and non disclosure will black the settlement indefenitely as observed from the pending refund issue nearing one year.
(viii) Mere conveying a rejection took 44 days itself speaks the CPC is have no say over the issue and just to supress their omissions taking shelter under RTI Act.
(ix) Fiduciary relationship will become operative only to ideal situation where the CPC's working is as per written guidelines of Dept or Govt. Once there is a violation from the written code fiduciary concept will become inoperative as observed from below deviations A. Advicing me to prefer rectification request and rejected thereafter B. To convey rejection took 44 days C. Refund issue not settled for year D. Non functionality of service (rectification right) has been suppressed. This aspect coming under the Suo Motta disclosure of information as the same pertaining to tax payers/public at large where CPC is duty bound to disclose volntarily to reduce RTI from the tax payers. Having failed to comply CPC's taking shelter under RTI Act is not in order.
E. Misguiding the tax payer with wrong information (we have tid the rectification rights to our AO, you are adviced to contact your JAO) F. Non compliance of DARPG TAT for redressal G. Delay of 5 months in settling refund even after mismatch issue over H. Unwarranted taking shelter under RTI Act just to suppress omissions
1. Misconception of fiduciary concept/public documents as private and personal information to their advantages.
1. It is something special on the part of CPC in considering me as third party to my daughter whereas I am the person looking after the IT. issues of my daughter for the past five years due to her working in essential sector where the work nature is different from others. The income tax dept is communicating to my mobile number and mail id only for the past 5 years thereby constituting a legally binding relationship under the principle of estoppel and denying information is not in order. It is just to supress their omissions and none else CPC is invoking RTI Sections to their advantages.
As the factual reasons for denial of information is not a genuine one where the malafide intention to supress the fact non functionality of rectification rights Page 47 of 67 involved as also the RTI couldn't be brought within the scope of fiduciary concept which CPC is taken as a shelter for their inefficiency the issue deserves Hon' Commission's intervention.
Outcome of the first appellate authority order The FAA Order received belatedly taken on record.
The FAA when speaking about the RTI requester as using RTI forum for litigant purpose has failed to see through the cause for RTI. Theirs inefficiency in rendering services to tax payers moreso their failure to declare the non functionality of rectification rights for 2022-2023 as suo motto declaration cann't be simply ignored while reviewing the CPIO order.
The FAA Order is highly subject to departmental bias In view of foregoing brief my prayer is as below
1. Disciplinary action against the CPIO, Income Tax Officer CPC, Bangalore under sec 20(2) of RTI act
2. Prayer for levying appropriate penalty under sec 20(1) of RTI act for denial of information sought."
4 In the light of the above, the following submission is respectfully made before the Hon'ble CIC:
In addition to the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the CPIO in disposing the RTI application of the appellant, it may also be pertinent to mention here that, Section 138 of the Income Tax Act prohibits disclosure of such information available with the Income Tax Department to any third party unless again, the larger public interest to be established by the Applicant requires it to be done. The Act provides for keeping such information guarded in confidence with the Authorities. Therefore, the bar under Section 138 of the RTI Act as well as the exemption provisions against such disclosure under Section 8 of the RTI Act discussed above, underscores the responsibility of the Department/CPC/CPIO in safe guarding the Income-tax related information of taxpayers from third parties.
The applicant is stating that communications have been sent to the mobile number and email id of the applicant by CPC for the last five years. In this connection, attention of the applicant is invited to the section 2(n) of the RTI Act, 2005 which defines the term "Third Party" as 'a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority. Therefore, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, the applicant is a third party. It is also informed that sending communications, under the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the registered email id/mobile number on the e-filing portal and providing the Page 48 of 67 information sought under the RTI Act, 2005 are under two different set of laws which cannot be linked.
The transferring of rectification rights to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer(the JAO) takes place in automated manner once a request is received from the JAO.
Once rectification rights are transferred to the JAO, the CPC processes the accounting of orders received from the JAO for a given PAN and for the assessment year in respect of which rectification rights are transferred to JAO. If the rectification rights of a particular PAN are transferred to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and thereafter a rectification application is received in the CPC, the rectification application gets rejected in the system automatically and the status of the rectification application filed is visible to the taxpayers on e-filing portal.
It is pertinent to be mentioned here that the entire process of income tax returns/rectification applications etc., at Centralised Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru is fully automated and functions without any human intervention. In the automated system the taxpayers are required to meet the system requirements for compliances and there is no scope of manual intervention on a case-to-case basis at any stage of operations at CPC. The credit for TDS will be recognized by the system if the TAN and TDS amount claimed in the return of income matches with the TAN and TDS amount available in 26AS at the time processing the income tax return or rectification application. The applicant himself had stated In the RTI application dated 05.04.2024 that the mismatched amount of Rs.15,600/- was remitted by the employer on 13th or 14th February, 2024 for the assessment year 2023-24 which is under consideration. However, in the ground of complaint (4) as above, the applicant stated that the refund issue is pending with CPC since August, 2023.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is informed that the act of CPIO- CPC in rejecting the application filed under the RTI Act, 2005 is not a mala fide act and it is as per provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, provisions of section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and various judicial pronouncements."
19.CIC/CCITB/C/2024/640056 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 07.07.2024
CPIO replied on : 06.08.2024
First appeal filed on : 06.08.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 05.09.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.09.2024
Page 49 of 67
Information sought:
63. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 07.07.2024 seeking the following information:
"THIS RTI PERTAINING TO CPC BANGALORE AMRITA RANJAN DIT THE ENCLOSED GRIEVANCE BEARING NUMBER PMOPG/E/2024/0034314 DT 13022024 HIMALAYAN TASK KEPT PENDING IN YOUR DESK FOR MORE THAN 110 DAYS DRAGING WITHOUT ANY ACTION GOT TRANSFREED TO LUCKNOW ON 05072024 WARRANTS THIS RTI INFORMATION SOUGHT 1 KINDLY PROVIDE ME THE CONTRIBUTION FROM YOUR PART IN REDRESSING THE GRIEVANCE FOR THE PAST 110 DAYS 2 PRESENT TRANSFER TO LUCKNOW WHETHER AT YOUR INSTANCE OR BY CBODT OR BY NODAL AUTHORITY KARNATAKA"
64. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 06.08.2024 stating as under:
"The RTI application, with Registration No.DGITS/R/T/24/00656, dated 08.07.2024, was received in this office on 08.07.2024 on transfer under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 from the CPIO of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), Bangalore. In the application, the applicant has sought the following information:
(i) KINDLY PROVIDE ME THE CONTRIBUTION FROM YOUR PART IN REDRESSING THE GRIEVANCE FOR THE PAST 110 DAYS.
(ii) PRESENT TRANSFER TO LUCKNOW WHETHER AT YOUR INSTANCE OR BY CBODT OR BY NODAL AUTHORITY KARNATAKA.
2. The RTI application is disposed as under.
With reference to the information sought, it is informed that the information sought is with reference to the grievances No.PMOPG/E/2024/0034314, dated 13.02.2024 filed by the applicant on behalf of his daughter Dr. Pichaimuthu Jayagaushika in connection with the income tax matters. In this connection, it is also informed that grievance redressal is beyond the scope of the RTI Act. The scope of the RTI Act is limited to provisioning of 'information' defined under the Act by the CPIO on an application made by a citizen for the purpose, subject to the other provisions thereof. For redressal of grievances, the applicant may explore various other platforms/forums meant for the purpose. Hence, the request of the applicant cannot be acted upon.
Page 50 of 67Without prejudice to the above, it is informed that the information sought is pertaining a PAN: BCIPJ9349G pertaining to Dr. Pichaimuthu Jayagaushika, a third party as per the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the request is liable to be rejected invoking the provisions of Section 8(1)(e) & 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
It may be mentioned here that the information on matters pertaining to income returns etc., of any taxpayer, is held by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, in its fiduciary capacity and treated as confidential. Kind attention is invited to Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act which reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the matter of Girish Ramachandra Deshpande (SLP No.27734 of 2012) has held that the information relating to Income tax matters of an assessee is personal information which stands exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act. In the application, nothing is found to establish the larger public interest is involved in seeking this information. Therefore, the undersigned is not satisfied that larger public interest warranting disclosure of the information has been sought by the applicant.
In this connection, attention of the applicant is invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shri Vinubhai Haribhai Patel Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax dated 27.01.2021 in C/LPA/1169/2016 wherein, vide para no. 14, it has been held that only the larger public interest, duly established with relevant material, can override this confidentiality of the information and documents available with the Income Tax Department. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has further held that the provisions of the RTI Act are not meant to allow the parties to collect evidence from such Departments or Public Authorities to sub-serve their private interest.
In view of the above, the request of the applicant is rejected, invoking the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act Without prejudice to the above, it is also informed that the CPC is the back-end office of the Assessing Officer and therefore, action in many of the grievances received, pertain to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer.Page 51 of 67
Besides, the time to respond to a particular grievance would depend on the nature of the grievance. For example, if it relates to processing and issuance of refund, etc., it would depend on the timelines prescribed under the Income Tax Act, the Amendments (that are in force at any given point of time) and Notifications/Circulars, etc. issued by CBDT in this regard from time to time. Furthermore, given the nature of automated, system driven processing at CPC, every return filed is unique and passes through several filters/checks built into the system and would depend on the data / information contained in the return."
65. Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 06.08.2024.
The FAA vide its order dated 05.09.2024, held as under.
"1 It is seen from the records that the CPIO had furnished his reply dt. 06.08.2024 and responded to the information sought for within time limit. The CPIO is found to have discharged his obligation sunder the RTI Act of providing an appropriate reply to the appellant and no infirmity is observed therein 2 Upon reviewing the appellant's appeal, it appears that the information sought in RTI application pertains to a third party and not the appellant. Based on the provisions of the RTI Act, as well as relevant judicial pronouncements by the Supreme Court and High Courts, information related to third parties falls outside the scope of the RTI Act. Consequently, the resolution of the CPGRAM relating to a third party, cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act.
3 RTI Act and Grievance Redressal It is pertinent to mention that the scope of the RTI Act is limited to adjudication by the First Appellate Authority as to whether the CPIO has provided a reply to the appellant under RTI Act. However, resolution of grievance, if any, cannot be addressed under the RTI Act.
4 Conclusion:
In the light of the above discussion, it is seen that the CPIO has discharged the obligations under the RTI Act and no infirmity therein, is Page 52 of 67 observed. In view of this it is held that the grounds of appeal are devoid of merits and the appeal stands dismissed."
66. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
67. A written submission has been received from Shri B. Vaidyanath, CPIO- cum-ITO, vide letter dated 30.06.2025, a copy of which has been sent to the Complainant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"2. The following is submitted for the kind consideration of the Hon'ble CIC:
The appellant, Mr. D.Pitchaimuthu, had filed an online application vide registration no. CCITB/R/T/24/00182 dated 08.07.2024 under the RTI Act. The application was received in this office on transfer on 08.07.2024 under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income tax(CCA), Bangalore. In the application, the appellant had sought the following information:
"This RTI pertaining to CPC Bangalore Amrita Ranjan DIT the enclosed grievance bearing number PMOPG/E/2024/0034314, dated 13.02.2024. Himalayan task kept pending in your desk for more than 110 days dragging without any action got transferred to Lucknow on 05.07.2024 warrants this RTI information sought:
(i) Kindly provide me the Contribution from your part in redressing the Grievance for the past 110 days.
(ii) Present transfer to Lucknow whether at your instance or by CBODT or by Nodal Authority Karnataka."
2.1. The CPIO, vide order under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act dated 06.08.2023 disposed the RTI application and uploaded the response on the RTI MIS portal. Vide the order, the applicant was informed, inter alia, that grievance redressal is beyond the scope of the RTI Act. The scope of the RTI Act is limited to provisioning of 'information' defined under the Act by the CPIO on an application made by a citizen for the purpose, subject to the other provisions thereof. For redressal of grievances, the applicant may explore various other platforms/forums meant for the purpose.
It was also informed that from the contents of the enclosure to the request made in the application filed under the RTI Act, is found to be pertaining to the grievances No. PMOPG/E/2024/0034314, dated 13.02.2024 filed by the applicant on behalf of his daughter Dr. Pichaimuthu Jayagaushika in connection with the income tax matters. As such the information sought pertaining to the income tax matter of a third party as per the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the request is liable to be rejected invoking the provisions of Section 8(1)(e) & 8(1)(1) of the RTI Act relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India's decision in the case of Sri Girish Ramachandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission (SLP Page 53 of 67 No.27734 of 2012) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shri Vinubhai Haribhai Patel Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax dated 27.01.2021 in C/LPA/1169/2016 Further, it was informed that the CPC is the back-end office of the Assessing Officer and therefore, action in many of the grievances received, pertain to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Besides, the time to respond to a particular grievance would depend on the nature of the grievance. For example, if it relates to processing and issuance of refund, etc., it would depend on the timelines prescribed under the Income Tax Act, the Amendments (that are in force at any given point of time) and Notifications/Circulars, etc. issued by CBDT in this regard from time to time. Furthermore, given the nature of automated, system driven processing at CPC, every return filed is unique and passes through several filters / checks built into the system and would depend on the data/information contained in the return.
2.2. As regards to filing appeal before first appellate authority, as per records of the CPC(ITR), Bengaluru, the applicant is found to have filed appeal on 06.08.2024 before the First Appellate Authority i.e. Additional Director of Income Tax, Unit-4, CPC, Bengaluru. The First Appellate Authority (the FAA) vide order under section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, dated 05.09.2024 dismissed the appeal of the appellant stating that the grounds of appeal are devoid of merits and observing the information sought in RTI application pertains to a third party and not the applicant. Based on the provisions of the RTI Act, as well as relevant judicial pronouncements by the Supreme Court and High Courts, information related to third parties falls outside the scope of RTI Act. Further, it has also been observed that resolution of grievance, if any, cannot be addressed under the RTI Act.
3 As per the enclosures to the notice of hearing under reference, the applicant had filed second appeal before the Hon'ble Central Information Commission on 07.09.2024 with the following grounds for complaint "a). CPC ALONE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RTI:
CPC's inefficiency in handling the grievance for > 100 days where any reasonable person will lost his patience resorted to RTI to know the fate/status of the grievance is a normal happening. Whereas just to suppress their sleeping over the issue for more than 110 days take shelter under RTI Sections by CPC is not in order.
b) CPC's Failure to invoke RTI Sections within the TAT:
It is upto the CPC to reject the grievance within the TAT which being an appropriate way of handling, but having failed for> 110 days their right to act otherwise is not based on merit and taking shelter under RTI Act for omissions constitute an unethical practice on their part.
c) No written guidelines followed by CPC:
CPC is very cool in holding the grievance for > 110 days and awakened only after raising RTI is an indicator their working is not based on any written guidelines of the Dept/Govt.
d) Recklessly transferring the grievance to Lucknow:Page 54 of 67
This is absolutely an unjustified Act on the part of DGITS where any person with reasonable knowledge raise QNs against CPC. The DGITS instead of facing the RTI trying to take shelter under RTI Act is not in order. The application in QN was transferred just because of the unwillingness to hold for further more time by MS Amirtha Ranjan DIT CPC as the same was highlighted to the notice of higher ups vide RTI.
e) Closure comments Vs foolishing the taxpayers:
The Grievance application was closed by the DGITS on 01.08,2024 with simple remark "Adviced the JAO to examine to settle the issue" is the outcome of CPC's research for > 110 is not only a teasing comments meant for the tax payer it is also meant for the credibility of the DEPT/Govt also.
f) CPC not working, hence no written brief available on record:
As transfering the application to Lucknow not based on any reasonable prudence without any written brief for such transfer, naturaly there will be no information available in their desk which ultimately prompted the RTI Sections only not relevant to the context.
g) Fiduciary relationship Vs. information sought The fiduciary concept has to do nothing with that of CPC's inaction on the grievance handling for more than 110 days is a scale of their performance/commitment to the tax payers but CPC's invoking RTI Section for any thing and every thing is not based on merit.
h) CPC is not true to themselves & tax payers:
CPC has failed to comply with the guidelines set out in the tax payers charter and thereby badly exposes the image of the dept before the public.
1) Information sought vs. RTI Sections involved by CPC:
CPC's contribution in redressing the grievance for 110 days and the reason for transferring the application to Lucknow has to do nothing with that of fiduciary relationship and other exemptions claimed by the CPC for the reason the information sought are not of personal nature. CPC has failed to explain how the information sought would interfering the fiduciary relationship and dragging Sec 8(1)()) & (E) are unwarranted to the information sought by me. The DGIT's hasty action of transferring the application to Lucknow is nothing but an abuse of official power by the DGITS where no public interest is involved but the CPC is considering the RTI forum as a legalised platform to take shelter for their omissions in the date to affairs including of my case of inaction for 110 days. CPC is duty bound to declare the reason voluntarily under suo motto declaration for transferring the applications to Lucknow which is also a failure under the RTI Act by CPC.
In view of the foregoing brief humbly submit, I am deserving for a Prayer
1. Disciplinary Action against the CPIO, Income Tax Officer CPC, Bangalore Under Sec 20(2) Of RTI Act
2. Prayer for levying appropriate Penalty under sec 20(1) of RTI Act for denial of Information Sought."
4. In the light of the above, the following submission is respectfully made before the Hon'ble CIC.Page 55 of 67
On perusal of the contents of the information sought in the RTI application as well as grounds of complaint before the Hon'ble Central Information Commission, it is observed that the applicant is appearing to use the RTI as a litigant tool which is not within the ambit of the RTI Act, 2005. If the applicant is not satisfied with the resolution provided against the grievance raised, the applicant may approach appellant authorities of grievance forum. The information sought on the grievance is found to be pertaining to a third party and hence the same cannot be provided to the applicant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, 2005 defines the term "Third Party" as "a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority. Further, relying on the provisions of section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sri Girish Ramachandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors (SLP No.27734 of 2012), dated 03.10.2012 and Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Shri Vinubhai Haribhai Patel Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, dated 27.01.2021 in C/LPA/1169/2016, the request of the applicant could not be acceded to. Without prejudice to the above, it is informed that the status of grievance of non-issue of refund to the applicant's daughter for the assessment year 2023-24 can be responded to the tax payer concerned.
In view of the above, it is submitted that the RTI application filed by the applicant had been disposed as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and various judicial pronouncements."
20.CIC/CCACH/C/2024/639883 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 07.07.2024 CPIO replied on : 08.07.2024 First appeal filed on : 08.07.2024 First Appellate Authority's order : 07.08.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.09.2024 Information sought:
68. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 07.07.2024 seeking the following information:
"THIS RTI PERTAINS TO CIT TDS MADURAI THE ENCLOSURE REPORTEDLY SIGNED WITH DIGITAL SINATURE BY EYAS AHAMED MUHAMMED CIT TDS MADURAI INFORMATION SOUGHT 1 PLEASE PROVIDE THE SUBJECT ORDER ENCLOSED HEREWITH IN VALIDATED STATUS I.E. WITH TICK MARK ONLY BY E MAIL AND NOT BY POSTAL MODE"Page 56 of 67
69. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 08.07.2024 stating as under:
"In connection with the information sought by the applicant, it is stated that CPC(TDS) is a processing center and the information that has been requested through this application is outside the purview of CPC (TDS) and accordingly, disposed of."
70. Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 08.07.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 07.08.2024, held as under.
"The appellant had filed RTI application dated 08.07.2024 addressed to CPIO though e-RTI application vide which he had requested the copy of order of CIT (TDS), Madurai with validated status i.e., with tick mark only by e-mail and not by the postal mode. The appellant Sh. D Pitchaimuthu has filed the appeal on the following ground.
1) Information requested not received from the CPIO vide order DT 08.07.2024.
2. After careful perusal of RTI application and the reply of CPIO (CPC-TDS) and also the RTI appeal, I am of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the CPIO since no information has been sought by the appellant w.r.t. CPC-TDS.
3. Accordingly, the First Appeal Petition under the RTI Act, 2005 filed by the appellant stands disposed accordingly."
71. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
72. A written submission has been received from Shri Vinod Pant, CPIO-cum- Pr. CIT, vide letter dated 26.06.2025 and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"Respected Sir, This is with reference to the notice issued by the Hon'ble Commission to the undersigned in connection with a grievance filed by the RTI applicant, Shri D. Pitchaimuthu, under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, against the ITO (Headquarters), Office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Tamil Nadu & Puducherry region) and the Nodal Officer, CBODT, New Delhi. In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that the said grievance does not pertain to the CPIO, CPC-TDS. The undersigned has no role in the matter, as the Page 57 of 67 grievance is directed towards the aforementioned authorities. A copy of the grievance letter along with its enclosures has already been forwarded to the concerned offices via email on 25.06.2025 at their official email IDs: diritcc- [email protected] and [email protected] for their information and necessary action. In addition, a hard copy of the same was also dispatched to the said offices on 25.06.2025 & 26.06.2025.
In view of the above, it is humbly requested that the notice issued to the undersigned may kindly be withdrawn."
73. A written submission has been received from Shri Manish, ITO-cum-CPIO, vide letter dated nil, stating as under:
"Para wise counter on the Ground for complaint raised by the Appellant
1. In the First para the Appellant has raised certain issues regarding the RTI order of the CIT(TDS), Madurai dated 03.07.2024. As this order is not under the purview of this Office, the undersigned has no comments to offer on the same.
2. In the Second para, the Appellant has raised issue regarding failure by the Nodal Officer, CBODT to send the RTI to the correct CPIO. Again, the assignment/transfer of the original RTI application, was not made by this Office and hence the undersigned has no comments to offer on the same.
3. Further, in the second para, the Appellant has mentioned that while filing the First appeal, he has brought the error to the notice of this office (ITO H.QRS, Chennai (Nodal Officer)) inspite of which the appeal was forwarded to the wrong FAA. For clarity, the Appellant's email dated 08.07.2024 sent to this office is reproduced as under:
"SIR 1 SUBMIT HEREWITH THE CPIO REPLY WHICH IS IN ORDER IN ALL ASPECTS AND THE OMISSIION IS ON THE PART OF CBODT WRONG ASSIGNMENT ONLY. I REQUEST YOU TO DOUBLY CHECK THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BEFORE ASSIGNING THE RTI TO AVOID RECURRENCE OF MISTAKE ONCE AGAIN THE FAA IS NOT THE ONE MENTIONED BY CPIO SH VINOD PANT I FURTHER STATE AS A RTI REQUESTER I WILL CONSIDER THIS DATE AS MY FIRST APPEAL DATE FOR ALL PURPOSE.
4. It's important to note that the original RTI application (Reg No. CBODT/R/E/24/01879, filed online on July 7, 2024) was processed and closed by the CPIO(CPC-TDS), Ghaziabad on July 8, 2024. In view of this, the first Appellate Authority under the RTI Act would be an officer senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) within the same public authority. In this regard, for the convenience of the Appellant & for the purpose of Appeal against the impugned order, the ITO CPIO(CPC-TDS), Ghaziabad has clearly stated as under:
"If the applicant feels aggrieved by the above order he may file an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Joint CIT, O/o Pr.CIT(CPC, TDS), Aavakar Bhawan, Vaishali, Ghaziabad under RTI Act, 1961 within 30 days of the receipt of this order."Page 58 of 67
5. Despite the RTI order of July 8, 2024, clearly listing the FAA (Joint CIT, O/o P1. CIT(CPC TDS), Aayakar Bhawan, Vaishali, Ghaziabad), the Appellant inexplicably chose to mail their First Appeal memo (Annexure-1) to this office on 11.07.2024 requesting to place the appeal before the Appropriate Authority for the required information.
6. The Appellant claimed in his July 8, 2024, email that the CBDT incorrectly assigned his RTI. However, given that the original RTI wasn't submitted to this office, it's puzzling why he chose to file his appeal memo against the impugned order dated July 8, 2024, which pertained to the disposition of an RTI application filed by the appellant before this office. The Appellant was obligated to file this appcal directly before the FAA. However, for reasons solely known to the Appellant, the appeal memo was submitted to this office via email on July 11, 2024. Additionally, he's requesting this office to transfer the appeal to an FAA other than the one clearly stated in the order being appealed.
7. Should the Appellant have been dissatisfied with the assignment of their original RTI application, the proper course of action would have been to register an objection with the public authority that initially received the application. The decision to raise such an objection, or its execution, falls solely within the Appellant's knowledge.
8. Now, in the impugned order against which this appeal was preferred, the details of the FAA is clearly mentioned as. as Joint CIT, O/ Pr. CIT(CPC TDS), Aayakar Bhawan, Vaishali, Ghaziabad. Accordingly, vide email dated 15.07.2025, this RTI appeal was sent to the FAA concerned, i.e., Joint CIT, O/o Pr. CIT(CPC TDS). In this email it was clearly mentioned by the undersigned that as the original application was disposed at that office, the First appeal application are forwarded. A copy of this mail was duly marked to the Appellant (Annexure-2).
9. The Appellant had the option to file their First Appeal directly with an alternative FAA if he believed the one mentioned in the CPIO(CPC-TDS) order of July 8, 2024, was incorrect, or to state correct FAA in the appeal memo itself. It's difficult to comprehend why the Appellant would expect the Nodal Officer to forward the appeal to an FAA not specified in the original order. The Joint CIT, O/o Pr. CT(CPC TDS), Aayakar Bhawan, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, was the designated FAA in the CPIO's order dated July 8, 2024, and this is the appropriate authority for appeals arising from that CPIO. This office was obligated to forward the appeal memo solely to the specified FAA. It would have been incorrect procedure to send it to any other FAA, even if the Appellant expected otherwise. Under Other Grounds:
10.In point 1, the Appellant has raised issue of wrong assignment of CPIO by the Nodal Officer, CBODT. This issue is outside the purview of this office and therefore no comments are offered.
11.In Point No. 2, the Appellant states that the ITO HQRS Chennai can send the letter in QN even directly to the Officer for manual signature which also a valid validation of the letter in question. He further states that the ITO, HQ has failed Page 59 of 67 to act with reasonable prudence and handed the issue casually giving room to this complaint.
12.It is respectfully submitted that, as the Nodal Officer (RTI), this authority's function is to forward RTI applications to the appropriate CPIO possessing the requested information. This office is not responsible for providing information on undertaken action which is not within its direct purview.
13. The issue raised at point 3, 4 & 4 (repeated) is not in the purview of this office and hence no comments are offered.
14. Regarding point no. 5, this office received an appeal memo via email on July 11, 2024, concerning an RTI order issued to the assessee on July 8, 2024 by the CPIO(CPC-TDS). The Appellant should have submitted this appeal directly to the designated FAA or to any other authority he believed to be correct. For reasons unknown to this office, he emailed it to this office instead. Since the memo challenged the CPIO, CPC-TDS order of July 8, 2024, which clearly named the Joint CIT, O/o Pr. CIT(CPC TDS) as the FAA and is also the designated FAA for that CPIO, this office transferred the appeal to that office. Subsequently, the FAA then disposed of this appeal through an order dated August 7, 2024,
15. In the instant case, the original application was filed before the CBDT which was then transferred to the CPIO(CPC-TDS). Consequent to which, the order dated 08.07.2024 was passed by that CPIO. The first time the appellant approached this office was by way of sending appeal memo via email dated 11.07.2024 and the same was promptly transferred to the specified FAA via email dated 15.07.2024. Hence, it is clear that in contrast to the allegations levied by the appellant, this office has acted promptly and forwarded the appeal memo to the FAA concerned. Henec, there was no obstruction in provision of information to the appellant.
In light of the preceding points, it is humbly submitted that this office adhered to conect procedure by transferring the appeal to the specified FAA, rather than another authority as the Appellant unlawfully expects. Therefore, it is submitted that this appeal/ complaint is liable to be dismissed."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Shri A. Shenbagam, ITO-cum-CPIO/ TDS Ward, attended the hearing through VC.
Shri Srisharan, CPIO-cum-Additional Commissioner, attended the hearing through VC.
Shri Manoj Prakash, CPIO-cum-Joint Commissioner, attended the hearing through VC.Page 60 of 67
Ms. Gayatri, CPIO-cum-Assistant Director, attended the hearing through VC. Ms. S. Thilagavathy, CPIO-cum-ITO (HQ), attended the hearing through VC. Shri Srisharan, CPIO-cum-Additional Commissioner, attended the hearing through VC.
Keerthi Narayan, CPIO-cum-Joint Director, attended the hearing through VC. Shri B. Vaidyanath, CPIO-cum-ITO, attended the hearing through VC. Shri Vinod Pant, CPIO, attended the hearing in person.
74. The Complainant stated that he is not satisfied with the replies provided by the Respondent. While explaining the brief background of the case, he relied upon his written submission which is as under:
"False statement by CPIO treasury officer letter reads they have remitted TDS amount to the tan account only without resorting any submission of 24g. CPIO just to establish his false statement TDS remitted vide book adjustment is not applicable to the employer who holds TDS amount in tan account for more than a year. CPIO repeated the false theory again and again despite having a to z direct evidences on hand, TDS was remitted one year later with correction statement therefor.
Further any amount lying in tan account or remitted to the tan account by the treasury couldn't be considered as a amount held in central govt account unless otherwise reversing the amount so held via 24q as per TDS remittence schedule. _ CPIO is of the view that outsiders are unable to understand the mechanism of TDS concept and actively placed his false theory before the RTI forum is a serious breach of RTI act.
While narrating the reason for not providing the tan statement CPIO has comfortably deviated from answering the reasons, a delibere misleading to the hon' commission as providing the statement will expose his foulplay before the RTI forum as evidenced from the penalty and tax due of Rs 11,57,757 / found in the CPIO letter.
CPIO is the cause for all multiple RTI as he tried his level best in concealing the facts on record by misrepresenting the issues at the pretext of RTI sections the public authority, a legal person, where invasion of privacy of third person/fiduciary relationship / personal information won't work before the mandate for RTI: the information must be truthful and correct in all respects. CPIO vide his present report misrepresented the fact vide para 11 page 5 sub sec iii & iv, as there is no such process took place in TDS case, clarified very clearly by the treasury officer the amount to the extent of 24g was credited to the tan account without resorting to 24g as via media CPIO to his convenience interpreting the letter just to conceal his omissions from record.Page 61 of 67
CPIO couldn't take shelter under one or another concept/cooked up theory to his advantage as the mechanism brought into record not applicable to the employer in the present case, hence ascribed for the omission of misrepresentation of fact in the RTI forum.
CBDT, apex body investigation report reads TDS was remitted with a delay of one year followed by the correction statement for the same. CPIO concealed the fact on record and has given false report to the RTI forum with a highlighted statement- treasury office has remitted TDS via 24g is the conclusive opinion of CPIO is differing from the written statement of treasury; they credited amount to tan account without resorting to 24g. The signatory of the present report is Tamil knowing person only but closed his eyes while giving report to the hon' commission.
TDS issue was fully resolved on 25.07.2024 le actual receipt of amount into the account and the report 21.02.2024 or 06.12.2023 as reported by ITO Tirunelveli both are false statement registered in the RTI forum as the fully resolved should be read with actual receipt of amount by the tax payer/claimant only. Form 26a of taxpayer is also direct evidence for the TDS default of one year attracts sec 276b reportable to the commissioner of income tax, omission of which suppressed by the CPIO. Failure to invoke sec 276 is a serious misconduct under service rules CPIO is silent over the penalty levied against the employer for Rs 11,57,757/ due to my complaint of TDS default. CPIO is responsible for obstrction of information and the CPIO'S report is void ab initio.
Hon apex court and hon high courts observed any proceedings based on falsehood be summarily rejected even without following the principle of natural justice and the CPIO order is absolutely coming under the purview of above findings.
Documents relied Treasury officer letter confirming TDS remitted to tan account of employer Employer penalised for Rs 11,57,757/(certificate for clean hands) of ITO TDS against whom complaint was made CBDT letter -TDS belated remittance vide statement followed by correction statement Form 26a of taxpayer with dt of credit details Ito self-admission TDS return not filed Brief on sec 276b TDS return filing direct evidence for TDS default Respectfully prayed Please issue necessary instruction to initiate disciplinary action against the cp Please levy appropriate penalty Please declare the CPIO'S present report as invalid"
75. The Respondent submitted that suitable reply based on available records has been given to the Complainant on all his RTI Applications. While explaining the brief background of the case, he submitted that Ms. Page 62 of 67 Pitchaimuthu Jaya Gaushika D/o Shri D. Pitchaimuthu, filed an e-Nivaran petition before CPC-TDS on 24.10.2023 requesting them to take stern action against employer i.e. City Health Officer (CHO), Tirunelveli Corporation, for failing to file TDS quarterly statements. As a result of failure in duty by the CHO, the daughter of the Complainant was unable to receive TDS credit, which led to a tax demand notice being issued to her. Upon receipt of the petition, a letter dated 06.12.2023 was issued by the Respondent to Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation, Tirunelveli (Health Section) to show cause notice as to why proceedings u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 shall not be initiated for the non-compliance of TDS provisions and the deductor was given opportunity up to 18.12.2023 to reply to the notice. Despite sufficient opportunity given, the deductor did not respond to the aforesaid letter. Meanwhile, during the 2nd and 3rd week of December 2023, an unprecedented rain that pounded Tirunelveli and flash flooding threw normal life out of gear and the office staff of Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation were engaged in work related to rescue and remedial operations. Considering the abnormal situation prevailed in Tirunelveli, their office waited for a reply from the deductor till 16.01.2024. As there was no reply received from the deductor, proceedings u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was initiated by Respondent's office in respect of Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation, Tirunelveli on 17.01.2024. In response to notice u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 17-01-2024, the deductor i.e. CHO, Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation vide her letter dated 24-01-2024 submitted that she has undergone critical medical treatment and was on leave and she has just joined the duty. It was also added that on receipt of the said notice, she has been making efforts to sort out the issue and comply with TDS provision at the earliest and requested for further time period of 30 days. The submission of the deductor was considered carefully by the Respondent and she was given further time up to 12.02.2024. Thereafter, the deductor filed TDS quarterly statement for the F.Ys. 2022-23 and 2023-24 giving TDS credit of Rs. 15,600/- and Rs.31,200/-respectively to Ms. P. Jaya Gaushika. In view of the above, the Respondent submitted that the mismatch in Form 26AS in respect of Ms. P. Jaya Gaushika for the financial years 2022-23 and 2023-24 were fully resolved and there is no delay in action against City Health Officer who is Page 63 of 67 the employer of the daughter of the Complainant and notice to Ms. P. Jaya Gaushika was discharged.
76. Thereafter, the Complainant filed multiple petitions under RTI Act, 2005 and CPGRAMS in this office to initiate action against the City Health Officer, Tirunelveli Corporation who is the employer of his daughter. He repetitively insisted on initiating the prosecution proceedings against City Health Officer, Tirunelveli u/s 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. He apprised the Bench of the fact that as per the provisions of Section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, if a person fails to pay to the credit of the Central Government, the tax deducted at source by him as required by or under the provisions of Chapter XVII-B, he shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and with fine. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that the City Health Office is functioning under the control of Department of Health, Government of Tamil Nadu. All payments, including salary, are made through the District Treasury and the amount of TDS is also remitted to the Government account through book adjustments. The amount of TDS deducted by the CHO is not held by her at any point of time during the entire process and instead the amount remains in the Government account. There is no default of TDS non-remittances and hence, it is factually wrong to state that the City Health Officer, Tirunelveli is a defaulter of TDS non- remittance and an offender u/s 276B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. It is also confirmed by the District Treasury Officer that the amount of tax deducted at source made by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer is given credit to their respective TAN every month by filing Form 24G. As such, the amount of TDS deducted by the City Health Officer, Tirunelveli Corporation for the months of February 2023 and March 2023 have been given due credit in Form 24G filed by the District Treasury Officer. The TDS amount has been duly credited to Central Government Account by the District Treasury (not by the City Health Officer) and the District Treasury filed Form 24G to give TDS credit to the TAN of City Health Officer. From the above, it is clear that in case of Government Deductor, the District Treasury Officer remits the TDS amount into the Central Government Account By filing Form 24G and it is not the responsibility of the deductor or TAN holder. In the present case, the City Health Officer being the Page 64 of 67 deductor /TAN holder is not responsible for crediting the TDS amount into the Central Government Account. Hence, he/she cannot be fixed as the defaulter u/s.276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the present case, it is very clear that the amount of TDS deducted by the City Health Officer has been credited to the Central Government account by the District Treasury. The Complainant has failed to comprehensively understand the concept of TDS mechanism. Despite this the Complainant sticks on to his position that the deductor is defaulter u/s 276 the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the instant case.
77. A written submission has been received from the Complainant vide letter dated 30.06.2025 and the same has been taken on record.
78. A supplementary written submission has been received from the Complainant vide letter dated 01.07.2025 and the same has been taken on record. It is noted that the concerned public authority of the State Government did not make any stop gap arrangement during the absence of the original incumbent CHO who was on leave because in the absence of DDO no bills can be paid including salary.
Decision
79. 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 Page 65 of 67 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 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
80. alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden."
81. The above ratio is applicable to this case as well. In all these cases, it is noted that the Complainant has a grievance that City Health Officer should be declared as defaulter under Section 276 the Income Tax Act, 1961, which cannot be addressed under the scope and ambit of the RTI Act. Despite this, the Respondent has amply clarified that the City Health Officer is not responsible for crediting the TDS amount to the Central Government Account. Hence, he/she cannot be fixed as the defaulter under Section 276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
82. Since records of these cases 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 the Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 in these complaints.
83. A pertinent issue emanating from the instant cases is that while notice to the assessee is issued promptly and automatically but the same parameter is not applied to the DDO/Deductor resulting in an avoidable harassment of the assessee/deductee who is a salaried employee. Thus, leaving the deductee/salaried employee/assessee generally to fend for themselves going and begging before both i.e. the DDO and the Income Tax Authorities despite having paid the tax well in time. The notice to the assessee is issued automatically through a faceless system without any manual interference because the system is now fully computerised, automated, faceless and nameless. However, for the DDO to be brought on notice simultaneously in such cases, there is no automated system for issuing notices to the concerned DDO (deductor) for any default on their part. This apparent discriminatory treatment of the two (deductee on one hand and the deductor on the other) can be addressed by a simple intervention of issuing notice to both simultaneously.
Page 66 of 6784. In view of the above, it is deemed fit to issue advisory for addressing the discrimination as noted above. Accordingly, an advisory under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act is issued to the Respondent Public Authority to explore possibility of synchronising the issuance of notices simultaneously to the deductee and as well as to the DDO concerned for an efficient and early resolution by forcing both to file replies within the same timeframe. This simple measure can help an honest salaried taxpayer who doesn't receive TDS credit because of the default of the DDO (deductor) which leads to a tax demand against them and ultimately making them suffer hardships and mental agony. In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the CPIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking necessary action.
The Complaints are disposed off accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), No. 2, V P Rathinasamy Nadar Road, CR Building, Bibikulam, Madurai - 625002 Page 67 of 67 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
1. Any other recommendation(s) to secure compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005-
Section 25 (5) of The RTI Act to explore possibility of synchronising the issuance of notices .....
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)