Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Shri Sumit Arora vs Income Tax Officer Ward 47(1) on 12 January, 2009

785SumitAroraITODelhi121 3                               1


                         CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                   Room No.308, B wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
                             Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/00785

Appellant:                                                Shri Sumit Arora

Public Authority:                                         Income Tax officer Ward 47(1),
                                                          Mayur Bhawan, New Delhi
                                                          (through Shri B.B. Jain, ITO)

Date of Hearing:                                          12/01/2009

Date of Decision:                                         12/01/2009

FACTS:-

The Appellant, vide his letter dated 14/01/2008, had requested for information on 11 points from the CPIO, which are reproduced here-below:-

"A. Did Mr. Vijay Anand explained the source of expenditure amounting to rs.35 lacs on the marriage of his daughter Ms. Vandana during the course of enquiry made by the office of D.I.? Any other info0rmation submitted by him on the source of the above said expenditure?

B. What observation was made by the D.I. while recommending the re-opening of the assessment of Vijay Anand for the Assessment Year 2002-2003 along with copy of the order? C. What explanation was offered by Vijay Anand about the source of above of above said expenditure amounting to rs.35 lacs during the course of re-assessment proceedings before the Income Tax Officer?

D. How much income has been re-assessed in the assessment order of Vijay Anand as income from un-disclosed sources and the copy of Asst. order for the last Asst. year 2002-2003. E. How much Income Tax demand including interest has been created as per notice of demand and also supply the copy of the notice of demand?

F. How much outstanding Income Tax demand has been recovered from Vijay Anand?

G. What action has been taken for the recovery of outstanding demand against Vijay Anand?

H. Has the fact been noted that he is fast shifting the ownership of his properties and also changing his residence addresses? (His new address is : GH-10/80 B, Sunder Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110087) 785SumitAroraITODelhi121 3 2 I. Has Vijay Anand preferred any appeal against Asst. Order? What is the status of the appeal and till what time could its disposal be expected?

J. Is there any stay order against outstanding Income Tax demand?

Copy of the stay order, if any, may kindly be supplied. K. What is the final stage of Income Tax Case of Vijay Anand for the Asst. Year 2002-2003?"

2. Vide his letter dated 11/02/2008, the CPIO had refused to disclose the information in terms of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, it is not mentioned in the letter whether notice was issued to third party u/s 11(1) of the RTI Act.

3. Aggrieved with the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant had filed First Appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, vide order dated 24/03/2008, had upheld the decision of the CPIO. From the perusal of the order, it appears that the Appellate Authority had also not heard the third party in terms of section 11(1) of the RTI Act.

4. The present Appeal has been directed against the order of the CPIO and the AA.

5. The matter was first heard on 03/12/2008. The Appellant Shri Sumit Arora appeared before the Commission. As the Commission had also issued notice to Shri Vijay Anand, he also appeared. Shri B.B. Jain, ITO, Ward-47, New Delhi, was also present.

6. The matter was briefly heard. Smt. Meeta P. Kumar, sister of the Appellant, made the following submissions on behalf of the Appellant:-

(i) that Shri Vijay Anand has allegedly evaded Income Tax and being a citizen of India and a tax payer, she is entitled to know the financial status and the evasions of tax by Shri Vijay Anand;

(ii) that Vandana, daughter of Shri Vijay Anand, has filed criminal cases regarding demand and acceptance of dowry by the Appellant with the police and that two such cases have since been prosecuted by the police, and the trials therein are going on. The Appellant needs the documents requested for, to defend himself in the court of law; and

(iii) that as per her information, the Income Tax authorities have completed the assessment process in respect of Shri Vijay Anand and that no investigation/inquiry is pending etc.

7. Shri Vijay Anand submitted that he would like to have a copy of the petition along with the annexures submitted by the Appellant to enable him to file a proper reply which was allowed.

8. For enabling the Commission to appreciate the whole issue in proper perspective, it was essential that the documents relied upon by both the parties were submitted before it, as also the Court/CIC decisions. Hence, the case was adjourned to 12/01/2009.

9. As scheduled, the hearing is resumed on 12/01/2009. The Appellant is before the Commission. The Income Tax Department is represented by Shri B.B. Jain, ITO, Ward 47(1), Mayur Vihar, New Delhi. The third party, namely, Shri Vijay Anand and his daughter Vandana are also present before the Commission.

10. Mrs. Meeta Kumar, sister of Shri Sumit Arora presented a compendium of documents before the Commission which is taken on record. She, in particular, has submitted the following documents:-

(i) Certified photocopy of FIR No. 263/2003 registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden u/s 498A, 406, 34 IPC;

(ii) Copy of the charge dated 08/12/2004 framed against the Appellant and others;

(iii) List of Stree Dhan;

(iv) Copy of the private complaint filed by Ms. Vandana Arora relating to causing of mis-carriage along with a copy of the charge;

(v) Copy of the complaint filed by Ms. Vandana Arora before the Magistrate under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005;

(vi) Copy of the complaint filed by Ms. Vandana Arora u/s 354, 509, 341 IPC;

(vii) Copy of the complaint filed u/s 125 of Cr.PC;

(viii) Copy of the complaint filed by Appellant Sumit Arora u/s 340- Cr.PC; and

(ix) Order dated 10/12/2008 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court staying the order relating to the payment of maintenance to Ms. Vandana.

10. In addition to the above, she has filed the following judgements/CIC rulings on which she relies on:-

(i) CIC decision dated 02/03/2007 in file No.CIC/AT/A/2007/0009;

(ii) Copy of the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 03/12/2007 in Bhagat singh Vs. CIC

11. Ms. Vandana Arora submits a compendium of documents which is taken on record. She, in particular, has submitted the following documents on behalf of Vijay Anand:-

         (i)      Complaint in Hindi filed by Ms. Vandana;
         (ii)     Order on charge u/s 313 I.P.C. by Ld. A.S.J. Jaychandra;
         (iii)    Prescription slip by Dr. Susham Dhawan;
         (iv)     Prescription slip of the doctor showing treatment for cigarette butt burns;
         (v)      Complaint dated 29th May, 2007;
         (vi)     Decision in F.No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00644 & 00646S dated 21st February,
                  1997(Ms. Neeru Bajaj Vs. Income Tax);
 785SumitAroraITODelhi121 3                     4

(vii) Decision in F.No.CIC/AT/A/2007/0307 dated 31st May, 2007 (Amol Ganpat Rackvi Vs Income Tax);

(viii) Decision in F.No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00464 dated the 9th July, 2007 (Shri Bhushan Kumar Vs Income Tax);

(ix) Decision in F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00599, 600 & 601 dated the 23rd October, 2008 (Shri Bimal Kanti Datta Vs Income Tax Department);

(x) Decision in F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00339 dated the 30th July, 2008, (Shri Pratik Gautam vs Income Tax Department); and

(xi) Decision in F.No.CIC/AT/A2008/00490 dated the 17th October, 2008 (Shri Bhushan Kumar vs Income Tax Department)

12. She would also make the following oral submissions in this regard:-

(i) that the intent of the Parliament behind enactment of RTI Act is to subserve the larger public interest and not to make it a tool to settle personal scores;

(ii) that the Appellant is mis-using the RTI Act to harass her father and pressurize her to withdraw her pending cases;

(iii) that the Appellant and other co-accused wanted to extort money from her family by torturing her and causing the death of unborn child;

(iv) that a senior IAS officer has been instrumental in causing harassment to her;

(v) that the Appellant and the members of his family have been physically threatening her;

(vi) that the disclosure of information sought by the Appelalnt would be prejudicial to her physical well being and that of her family as this may attract the attention of anti-social elements and, therefore, is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(d)(j)(h)&(g);

(vii) that Shri Vijay Anand is not a Public Authority.

(viii) that the Delhi High Court ruling in Bhagat Singh case does not apply in the case of her father Shri Vijay Anand as the factual matrix of that case differs from the present one and disclosure of information requested for would be voilative of the doctrine of privacy.

(ix) that the CIC decision in Yamaji Sakharam Rathore case relied upon by the Appellant is not relevant in this case inasmuch as her father Shri Vijay Anand is not a public servant etc.

13. She also relies on the following decisions of the Commission:-

• File No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00644 and 00646 (Neeru Bajaj Vs. Income Tax); • File No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00307 (Shri Amol Ganapati Rackvi); • File No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00464 (Bhushan Kumar Vs. Income Tax Department);

• File No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00599, 600-601 (Bimal Kanti Dutta Vs. Income Tax Department);

• File No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00339 (Shri Prateek Gautam Vs. Income Tax Department);

• File No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00490 (Bhushan Kumar Vs. Income Tax Department).

14. She summs up her submissions by stating that disclosure of information sought by the Appellant is not in larger public interest and that it is for the personal gain of the appellant to pressurize and intimidate her and her father to withdraw the criminal cases instituted against the Appellant and his family members.

15. As per contra, Mrs. Meeta Kumar would submit that it is incorrect to say that this information is being sought to settle personal scores. She would also submit that her family members, including her husband, are already facing trials in the cases instituted by Ms. Vandana in various courts. She would further submit that she is concerned with the evasion of income tax and it is for this reason that the information is being sought. She would also submit that Bhagat Singh ruling applies in the case in hand.

DECISION

16. After hearing both the parties and after carefully going through the orders passed by the CPIO and the AA referred to herein above, it is noticed that neither the CPIO nor the AA issued notice to the third party u/s 11(1) of the RTI Act to seek the objections, if any, and thereafter decide the case on merits. This is a serious flaw in the orders passed by the CPIO and the AA. In view of the above, the case is remanded back to Shri B.B. Jain, ITO, Ward 47(1), Mayur Bhawanm, New Delhi (CPIO), with the direction to follow the procedure prescribed in section 11(1) of the RTI Act and decide the RTI Application under reference afresh in three weeks time from the receipt of this order.

17. If the appellant is not satisfied with the decision of the CPIO, he would be at liberty to file First Appeal before the AA and the AA would admit the Appeal regardless of delay in the filing of the Appeal. It is also ordered that if the Appellant is not satisfied with the order of the AA, he would be at liberty to move the Commission again.

18. The matter is disposed of as directed herein above.

19. Copies of the written submissions presented by both the parties before the Commission may also be transmitted to the CPIO for reference.

Sd/-

(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.

(K.L. Das) Assistant Registrar Tele: 011 2671 73 53 785SumitAroraITODelhi121 3 6