Central Information Commission
Shri Shyam Sunder Prasad, Ms. Uma Devi & ... vs Income Tax Department on 31 December, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00273, 00333 & 00492
Dated, the 31st December, 2008
Appellants : Shri Shyam Sunder Prasad (Appeal No.273)
Ms. Uma Devi (Appeal No.333)
Ms. Sunita Ranjan (Appeal No.492)
Respondents : Income Tax Department
These second-appeals came up for hearing on 22.12.2008. Appellants were present through their rep., Shri Shishu Ranjan, while the respondents were present through Shri Alok Misra, Joint Commissioner and Shri S.K. Jha, Commissioner of Income Tax.
2. Earlier Commission had issued an interim direction dated 16.07.2008 directing the respondents to make a diligent search to trace out the document requested by the appellant, Shri Shyam Sunder Prasad, through his RTI-application dated 26.02.2007. Appellant had requested the following information:-
"I would like to have the certified copies / photocopies of the original documents, along with its enclosures, which were taken into custody from my house on 11/12 February 1988 by the Income Tax Department."
3. As per the written-submissions filed by the Appellate Authority dated 08/11.12.2008 a diligent search was made to trace out the documents requested by the appellant through his RTI-application but "all the documents could not be found......". However, respondents had issued necessary certificates to the appellant about the loss of the original documents seized from him by the officers of the public authority following an income-tax-raid on 11th and 12th February 1988. Letters were also issued to the Banks advising them that the frozen accounts of the appellant could now be allowed to be operated by him.
4. Appellant in his rejoinder has stated that the loss of original documents about ownership of property by appellant and members of his family, bank accounts and so on, has caused serious and irremediable detriment to him. The officers of the public authority had been grossly derelict in keeping the documents seized from the appellant safe and secure, which was their responsibility. These officers should be made accountable for their failure to discharge a very important responsibility towards an average citizen. The failure of the respondents to ensure the safety and security of the seized documents shakes the belief of an ordinary citizen that the public authority was at-all Page 1 of 2 equipped to or could at-all be trusted to responsibly discharge its appointed function as an arm of the Sovereign State. He urged that he must be compensated for the irreparable loss that he has suffered.
5. During the hearing, the representatives of the respondents stated that they would render to the appellant all assistance and help in eliminating the detriment he has suffered on account of the loss of the original documents as seized from him by the respondent-public authority and which are now admittedly untraceable.
Decision:
6. It is now very clear from the submissions made in this case that appellant has suffered a serious and irreversible handicap by the failure of the officers of the public authority to retain the documents ⎯ many of which important and permanent property-related documents ⎯ in safe custody. It is admitted that these documents were seized from the appellant and other members of his family during an income-tax-raid way back in the year 1988. This manifest failure of the officers of the public authority has undeniably caused to the appellant serious detriment. It is difficult to see as to how this could be now remedied through improvised actions by the public authority. It was offered to the appellant that the public authority would give to him a Lost Document Certificate to enable him to obtain the duplicate copies of the property documents from the office of the Registrar of Properties of the State Government. This could be only small consolation for the appellant. Apart from that, he will have to further accept the entirely avoidable strain and expense of obtaining duplicate copies of the original documents lost by the public authority.
7. While I urge the public authority to extend to the appellants all necessary assistance in minimizing the impact of the loss of important documents, I consider this to be a fit matter for the appellant to be properly compensated for such loss which has undeniably exposed him to avoidable detriment.
8. Accordingly, it is directed that notice may issue to the head of the public authority, viz. the Chairman, CBDT to show cause as to why a compensation of Rs.1 lakh should not be awarded to the appellant on account of the detriment inflicted on him by the negligent maintenance of key documents admittedly seized from him during an IT raid on 11th and 12th February, 1988. Returnable in three weeks.
9. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Page 2 of 2