Radha Raman Tripathy vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 6 September, 2024

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Radha Raman Tripathy vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 6 September, 2024

                            केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                         बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                       नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067


     File Nos:   CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625045, CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625047,
                 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625049, CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625052,
                 CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625054, CIC/CCITH/C/2023/624867,
                  CIC/CCITH/C/2023/624869, CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625696,
                  CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625697, CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626541,
                  CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626544, CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626551,
                  CIC/CCITH/C/2023/633834, CIC/CCITH/C/2023/633827,
                  CIC/CCITH/C/2023/634568, CIC/CCITH/C/2023/634572,
                  CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623900, CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625080,
                  CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625081, CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625698,
                  CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625720, CIC/CCITH/C/2023/633828,
                  CIC/CCITH/C/2023/634569, CIC/CCITH/C/2023/634573,
                  CIC/CCITH/C/2023/634574, CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639100,
                  CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639105, CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639106,
                  CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639098, CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623899,
                  CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623810, CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623813,
                  CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623814, CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623825 and
                  CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623858 (35 cases)


RADHA RAMAN TRIPATHY                          ....निकायतकताग /Complainant


                                 VERSUS
                                  बनाम


CPIO,
Office of the Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax,
IT Towers, 10-2-3, AC Guards,
Hyderabad - 500004



                                                               Page 1 of 56
 CPIO
Income Tax Officer,
Ward-15(1), D-Block, IT
Towers, 10-2-3, AC Guards,
Hyderabad - 500004

CPIO
Office of the Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle-9(1), D-Block, IT Towers,
10-2-3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500004


CPIO
Office of the Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle 10(1), A-Block, IT
Towers, 10-2-3, AC Guards,
Hyderabad - 500004


CPIO
Office of the Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax,
A-Block, IT Towers, 10-2-3, AC
Guards, Hyderabad - 500004


CPIO
Office of the Addl.
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Range - 2, IT Towers, 10-2-3,
AC Guards, Hyderabad -500004


CPIO
Office of the Addl.
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Range-8, D-Block, IT Towers,
10-2-3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500004



                                        Page 2 of 56
 CPIO
Office of the Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax,
B-Block, IT Towers, 10-2-3, AC
Guards, Hyderabad - 500004

CPIO
Office of the Addl.
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Range-13, Aaykar Bhawan,
Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500029


CPIO
Office of the Addl.
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Range-5, Aaykar Bhawan,
Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500029

CPIO
Office of the Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Aaykar Bhawan, Basheerbagh,
Hyderabad - 500029

CPIO
Office of the Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle-1(2), Aaykar Bhawan,
Basheerbagh, Hyderabad -500029


CPIO
Office of the Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax,
B-Block, IT Towers, 10-2-3, AC
Guards, Hyderabad - 500004

CPIO
Office of the Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax,
A-Block, IT Towers, 10-2-3, AC
                                  Page 3 of 56
 Guards, Hyderabad - 500004                      ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                   :   27.08.2024
Date of Decision                  :   06.09.2024

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on          :   01.06.2022, 20.09.2022, 22.09.2022,
                                      29.05.2022
CPIO replied on                   :   13.08.2024, 27.08.2024, 09.08.2024,
                                      22.08.2024, 22.06.2023, 15.08.2024,
                                      23.08.2024, 19.08.2024, 21.08.2024,
                                      15.05.2024, 20.08.2024 and 16.08.2024
First appeal filed on             :   Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order :   Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated        :   23.05.2023, 18.05.2023, 26.05.2023,
                                      30.05.2023, 08.07.2023, 15.07.2023,
                                      16.05.2023 and 09.08.2023


The above-mentioned complaints are clubbed together as the Complainant
and the Respondent Public Authority are common and subject-matter is similar
in nature and hence are being heard together and disposed of through a
common order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.


                           CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625045
Information sought

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour.

This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.

It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was Page 4 of 56 liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.

Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.

Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-

04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.

It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.

Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.

1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT office and not by the Assessing Officer itself for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Hyderabad."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 13.08.2024 stating as under:

"i) This office is submitting various statistical reports to higher authorities. However, the data as required by the applicant is not part of such statistical reports compiled or sent.

ii) The information required were given a careful study. In this regard it is to be mentioned here that the Act requires the supply of such information only which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. It is beyond the scope of the Act for a public authority to create information. Also, the appellant has no particular purpose in asking for the information. Under these circumstances, there is no such information readily available as sought for by the applicant."

Page 5 of 56

Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625047 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour.

This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.

It was absurd and ridiculous on part of the Addl. CIT, CIT and the CCIT to ignore this fact and accorded sanction for scrutiny, whereas PAHH was liable to disclose this Bank Account in the ITR of AY 2005-06 and this was duly reflected and disclosed.

Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.

04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.

It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.

Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.

Page 6 of 56

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 27.08.2024 stating as under:

With regard to your RTI application Nos. CCITH-22-00030/5 dated 16.05.2023 and CCITH-22-00031/5 dated 23.05.2023 and further, CIC Notice hearing letters in F. No. CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625047 & 623900 dated 29.07.2024 on the above cited subject, it is submitted that RTI Act 2005 as amended till 17.05.2021, the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) was excluded from the purview of RTI, by placing it at serial no.16 in the second schedule to the Right to Information Act, 2005.

As this office is part of the DGIT(Inv), Hyderabad, it is exempt from the provision of RTI Act, 2005.

2. In view of the above, it is requested to kindly treat the RTI application as disposed off. The delay in response is sincerely regretted.

Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625049 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2023 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour.

This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.

Page 7 of 56

Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.

04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.

It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.

Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 09.08.2024 stating as under:

"I am to refer to your Request for Information under RTI Act 2005, received vide letter dated 01/06/2022 and to say that The information sought pertains to a period of more than 15 years. The information sought is not required to be maintained by this office. Hence, such information is not available in this office.."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625052 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2023 seeking the following information:

Page 8 of 56

"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour.

This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.

Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.

04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.

It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.

Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 09.08.2024 stating as under:

"I am to refer to your Request for Information under RTI Act 2005, received vide letter dated 01/06/2022 and to say that the information sought pertains to a period of more than 15 years. The information Page 9 of 56 sought is not required to be maintained by this office. Hence, such information is not available in this office."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625054 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour. This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.

Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.

Since there were severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-

04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.

It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.

Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.

Page 10 of 56

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 22.08.2024 stating as under:

"I am to refer to your Request for Information under RTI Act 2005, received vide letter dated 01/06/2022 and to say that the information sought is not required to be maintained by this office. Hence, such information is not available in this office."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/624867 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour.

This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.

Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.

04. Page 11 of 56 Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.

It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.

Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/624869 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour.

This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.

Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.

Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed Page 12 of 56 the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-

04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.

It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.

Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625696 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN- AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.

Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs. One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.

Page 13 of 56

1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.

2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd-3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT.

Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.

Unfortunately, no refund has been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.

Point to be noted is that no tax was due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.

Kindly provide me the following information.

1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax was recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31-03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 03-02-2024 stating as under:

"1. Number of cases in which proceedings for scrutiny/Refund were started after more than 4 years from the date of filing of ITR by the Assessee for and during the period from 01-04-2005 to 31-03-2010- Not available

2. Number of cases out of Sl. I above in which Order Sheets were back dated and Signature of the Assessing Officer were missing---- No such instance.

In case, you want to go for an appeal in connection with the information provided, you may appeal to the Appellate Authority i.e. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-6, Hyderabad."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625697 Information sought:

Page 14 of 56

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN- AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.

Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.

1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.

2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd-3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT.

Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.

Unfortunately, no refund has been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.

Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is a unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.

Kindly provide me the following information.

1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax was recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31-03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 22.08.2024 stating as under:

Page 15 of 56

"I am to refer to your Request for Information under RTI Act 2005, received vide letter dated 20/09/2022 and to say that the information sought pertains to a period of more than 14 years. The information sought is not available in this office."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626541 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 22.09.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN- AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.

Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs. One Crore from PAHH, Mr. Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assessed in default. No tax was due from the following persons.

1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.

2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd-3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT.

Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-**********162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-********173.

Unfortunately, no refund has been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.

Page 16 of 56

The point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.

Kindly provide me the following information.

1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax was recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31-03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 13.08.2024 stating as under:

"i) This office is submitting various statistical reports to higher authorities. However, the data as required by the applicant is not part of such statistical reports compiled or sent.

ii) The information required were given a careful study. In this regard it is to be mentioned here that the Act requires the supply of such information only which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. It is beyond the scope of the Act for a public authority to create information. Also, the appellant has no particular purpose in asking for the information. Under these circumstances, there is no such information readily available as sought for by the applicant."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626544 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN- AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.

Page 17 of 56

Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs. One Crore from PAHH, Mr. Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default. No tax was due from the following persons.

1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.

2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd-3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT.

Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-*******162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-********173.

Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.

Point to be noted is that no tax was due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.

Kindly provide me the following information.

1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax was recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31-03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 13.08.2024 stating as under:

"i) This office is submitting various statistical reports to higher authorities.

However, the data as required by the applicant is not part of such statistical reports compiled or sent.

ii) The information required were given a careful study. In this regard it is to be mentioned here that the Act requires the supply of such information only which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. It is beyond the scope of the Act for a public authority to create information. Also, the appellant has no particular purpose in asking for the information. Under these circumstances, there is no such information readily available as sought for by the applicant."

Page 18 of 56

Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/626551 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN- AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.

Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs. One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default. No tax was due from the following persons.

1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.

2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd-3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT.

Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-*********162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-********173.

Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.

Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.

Kindly provide me the following information.

Page 19 of 56

1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31-03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/633834 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor.

This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.

Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.

04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.

It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2.

Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Hyderabad.

1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."

Page 20 of 56

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 15.08.2024 stating as under:

"I am to refer to your Request for Information under RTI Act 2005, received vide letter dated 29/05/2022 and to say that Information sought for by the applicant Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the assessee for the Asst Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today.

Information being furnished by CPIO So far as the PrCIT-1, Hyderabad Charge is concerned, the information is NIL."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/633827 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor.

This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.

Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.

04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.

Page 21 of 56

It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2 .

Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Hyderabad.

1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/634568 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour.

This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.

Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.

04. The reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.

Page 22 of 56

It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.

Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/634572 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour.

This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.

Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.

04. Page 23 of 56 Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.

It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.

Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623900 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor.

This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.

Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.

Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed Page 24 of 56 the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-

04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.

It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2.

Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Hyderabad.

1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 27.08.2024 stating as under:

"With regard to your RTI application Nos. CCITH-22-00030/5 dated 16.05.2023 and CCITH-22-00031/5 dated 23.05.2023 and further, CIC Notice hearing letters in F.No. CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625047 & 623900 dated 29.07.2024 on the above cited subject, it is submitted that RTI Act 2005 as amended till 17.05.2021, the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) was excluded from the purview of RTI, by placing it at serial no.16 in the second schedule to the Right to Information Act, 2005. As this office is part of the DGIT(Inv), Hyderabad, it is exempted from the provision of RTI Act, 2005.

2. In view of the above, it is requested to kindly treat the RTI application as disposed off. The delay in response is sincerely regretted."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625080 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour.

This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.

Page 25 of 56

Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.

04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.

It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.

Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 23.08.2024 stating as under:

"In this regard, it is submitted that this office does not hold the information pertaining to office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Further, it is also submitted that the assessment records are maintained by the assessing officer only. The Range head may call for record during the pending assessment proceedings, when direction u/s 144A of the Act is sought either by the Assessing officer or the assessee. Therefore, the appeal of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.

Page 26 of 56

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625081 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour.

This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.

Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.

04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.

It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.

Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.

Page 27 of 56

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 19.08.2024 stating as under:

"The information sought is out of the jurisdiction of this office post restructure of the Department."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625698 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN- AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.

Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.

1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.

2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd-3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT.

Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-*********162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-*********173.

Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.

Page 28 of 56

Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.

Kindly provide me the following information.

1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 09.08.2024 stating as under:

"I am to refer to your Request for Information under RTI Act 2005, received vide letter dated 20/09/2022 and to say that The information sought pertains to a period of around more than 15 years. The information sought is not required to be maintained by this office. Hence, such information is not available in this office.."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/625720 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN- AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra. Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs. One Crore from PAHH, Mr. Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default. No tax was due from the following persons.

1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.

Page 29 of 56

2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd-3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT.

Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-**********162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-*********173.

Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.

Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.

Kindly provide me the following information.

1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31-03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/633828 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor.

This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.

Page 30 of 56

Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.

04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.

It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2 .

Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Hyderabad.

1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 09.08.2024 stating as under:

"I am to refer to your Request for Information under RTI Act 2005, received vide letter dated 29/05/2022 and to say that the information sought pertains to a period of more than 15 years. The information sought is not required to be maintained by this office. Hence, such information is not available in this office."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/634569 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour.

This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.

Page 31 of 56

Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.

04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.

It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.

Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 22.08.2024 stating as under:

"I am to refer to your Request for Information under RTI Act 2005, Freceived vide letter dated 01/06/2022 and to say that the information sought pertains to a period of more than 15 years. The information sought is not required to be maintained by this office. Hence, such information is not available in this office."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/634573 Information sought:

Page 32 of 56

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour.

This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.

Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.

04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.

It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.

Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 21.08.2024 stating as under:

Page 33 of 56

"So far the PrCIT-1, Hyderabad Charge is concerned, the information is NIL."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/634574 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favour.

This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.

Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.

04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. This is ridiculous and absurd.

It is ridiculous that First Page of Order Sheet has been written in the office of the CCIT, Ranchi. Until now the CBDT, the MoF, the Revenue Secretary all kept mum and supported this corrupt officer.

Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT, Charge.

Page 34 of 56

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 21.08.2024 stating as under:

"So far the PrCIT-1, Hyderabad Charge is concerned, the information is NIL."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639100 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN- AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.

Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs. One Crore from PAHH, Mr. Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default. No tax was due from the following persons.

1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.

2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd-3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT.

Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.

Page 35 of 56

Unfortunately, no refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.

Point to be noted is that no tax was due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.

Kindly provide me the following information.

1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31-03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 15.05.2024 stating as under:

"I am to refer to your Request for Information under RTI Act 2005, received vide letter dated 06/05/2024 and to say that Reply letter attached."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639105 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN- AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.

Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.

Page 36 of 56

1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.

2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd-3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT.

Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-********162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-*********7173.

Unfortunately, no refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.

Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.

Kindly provide me the following information.

1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31- 03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 09.08.2024 stating as under:

"I am to refer to your Request for Information under RTI Act 2005, received vide letter dated 20/09/2022 and to say that The information sought pertains to a period of around more than 15 years. The information sought is not required to be maintained by this office. Hence, such information is not available in this office.."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639106 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN- AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This Page 37 of 56 account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.

Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs.One Crore from PAHH, Mr Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default . No tax was due from the following persons.

1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.

2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd-3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT.

Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-*************162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI**********73.

Unfortunately, No refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.

Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.

Kindly provide me the following information.

1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31-03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 20.08.2024 stating as under:

"The information is NIL in respect of this CPIO."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/639098 Information sought:

Page 38 of 56

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro from Paramji Alias His Holiness (PAHH)(PAN- AARPH0661H) for settling Scrutiny Assessment for the AY 2003-04 selected on sole ground of not disclosing Bank Account of SBI. This account was opened on 16/03/2005, as such this could not and was not liable to be disclosed in the ITR of AY 2003-04. However, PCCIT, Patna, the CCIT, Ranchi, The PCIT, Hazaribagh, CBDT and the FMO all closed their eyes and protected the highhandedness of Mr. Sonbhadra.

Out of frustration for not getting bribe of Rs. One Crore from PAHH, Mr. Sonbhadra did many wrong things against PAHH and his AR Mr. RR Tripathy. He also caused harassment to followers of PAHH who were not assesses in default. No tax was due from the following persons.

1. Ms. Neeta Agarwal- Rs.5,51,000/-deducted. (Assessed to ITO-WD-3(2), Bokaro. Date of recovery-12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, Surat.

2. Mr. Ram Punit Chaudhary-Rs.1,10,000/- recovered. (Assessed to ITO- Wd-3(2), Bokaro. Recovered on 12/04/2008 from SBI, Station Road, SURAT.

Bank Account of Ms. Neeta Agarwal- SBI-10394517162 Bank Account of Ram Punit Chaudhary- SBI-10394517173.

Unfortunately, no refund have been granted to them until now in spite of several requests.

Point to be noted is that no tax were due from any of the assesses mentioned as above. This is an unique experience and a kind of extortion by Mr. Sonbhadra.

Kindly provide me the following information.

1. Number of assesses who were not an Assessee in default but tax were recovered from their bank account during the period from 01-04-2008 to 31-03-2010 in respect of all Assessing Officers of your charge."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 20.08.2024 stating as under:

Page 39 of 56

"The information is NIL in respect of this CPIO."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623899 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2023 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor.

This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.

Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.

04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.

It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2 .

Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Hyderabad.

1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 16.08.2024 stating as under:

Page 40 of 56

"i) This office is submitting various statistical reports to higher authorities. However, the data as required by the applicant is not part of such statistical reports compiled or sent.

ii) The information required were given a careful study. In this regard it is to be mentioned here that the Act requires the supply of such information only which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. It is beyond the scope of the Act for a public authority to create information. Also, the appellant has no particular purpose in asking for the information. Under these circumstances, there is no such information readily available as sought for by the applicant."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623810 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor.

This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.

Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.

Since there was severe irregularities in the entire process of selection of case for scrutiny, Mr. VR Sonbhadra to hide the wrong doings, destroyed Page 41 of 56 the First Page of Order Sheet of Assessment Proceedings for the AY 2003-

04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.

It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2.

Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Hyderabad.

1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 22.08.2024 stating as under:

"I am to refer to your Request for Information under RTI Act 2005, received vide letter dated 29/05/2022 and to say that the information sought pertains to a period of more than 15 years. The information sought is not required to be maintained by this office. Hence, such information is not available in this office."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623813 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor.

This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.

Page 42 of 56

Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.

04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.

It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2.

Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Hyderabad.

1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 27.08.2024 stating as under:

"In continuation to this office letter dated 19.08.2024, it is hereby submitted that as per Gazette Notification dated 28.03.2008 of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, the "Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation)" was excluded from the purview of RTI Act, as it was included at Serial No.16 in the Second Schedule of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The copy of the Gazette of India dated 28.03.2008 is enclosed herewith.

It is further submitted that the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad is part of the DGIT (Investigation) set up. Hence, this office is exempted to furnish information under Section 24(2) of the RTI Act, 2005."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623814 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 seeking the following information:

Page 43 of 56

"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor.

This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.

Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.

04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.

It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2.

Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Hyderabad.

1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 22.08.2024 stating as under:

"I am to refer to your Request for Information under RTI Act 2005, received vide letter dated 29/05/2022 and to say that the information sought pertains to a period of more than 15 years. The information sought is not required to be maintained by this office. Hence, such information is not available in this office."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623825 Page 44 of 56 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 seeking the following information:

"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor.

This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.

Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.

04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.

It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2.

Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Hyderabad.

1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.

CIC/CCITH/C/2023/623858 Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 seeking the following information:

Page 45 of 56

"Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) bribe was demanded by Mr. VR Sonbhadra, then ACIT, Bokaro, from Paramji Alias His Holiness (Now PAHH) for settling scrutiny assessment for the AY 2003-04 in his favor.

This case was selected for scrutiny on the sole ground of not disclosing one Bank Account of SBI, Chas, Bokaro which was opened on 16/03/2005.

Bribe was not given by PAHH, hence VR Sonbhadra and Company became furious and did many wrong things against PAHH and his A.R. which will be disclosed now one by one.

04. Reply of Mr. VR Sonbhadra is enclosed for kind perusal, wherein he has admitted that First Page of Order Sheet has not been Given.

It is ridiculous that Order Sheet was given starting from page 2 .

Kindly provide me the following information in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, Hyderabad.

1. Number of scrutiny cases in which First Page of Order Sheet was not given to the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in respect of all Assessing Officers of PCCIT Charge, until today."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 20.08.2024 stating as under:

"The information called for may please be treated as NIL in respect of this CPIO."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Page 46 of 56

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Complainant: Absent Respondent: Shri M Karthik Manickam, CPIO, Shri Satish Kumar, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ms. S. Shyama, ITO, Shri Y. Venugopal, ITO, Shri N. Venugopal, ITO, Shri D J Prabhakar, Commissioner of Income Tax, Shri A. P. Babu, Additional CIT, Shri Bhanu Prakash, ITO, Shri K Bhrahmjee, ITO/CPIO Shri S. Shyam Kumar, ACIT/CPIO, Shri G. Radha Krishnan, ACIT/CPIO, Shri Sreenivas Rao, CPIO, Shri N. Suryanarayanan, Tax Recovery Officer/CPIO, Shri T Shiva Ram Prasad, ITO and Shri B. Naveen Kumar, Additional Commissioner/FAA appeared through video conference.

The respondents, while defending their cases inter alia submitted that after receipt of hearing notices of the Commission, they had replied to the above RTI applications as per the records available with them. They further submitted that some of the RTI applications could not be responded to as they could not locate the RTI applications filed by the complainant due to some technical glitches. It was also submitted that due to technical issues concerning CPIO during that period was unable to login and verify the pending RTI requested in CPIO-MIS Portal pertaining to Pr. CCIT, Hyderabad.

In addition to the above, the respondents informed that there was merging and restructuring of the Department at the relevant time, hence, all the Wards comes under Hyderabad wherein online RTI applications filed were not accessible on account of non-availability of online RTI access ID and password. Therefore, some of the above-mentioned RTI applications could not be attended to within the mandated period. The Respondents apologized for the delay occurred in replying to the RTI applications and assured the Commission that such lapses would not recur in future.

The Respondent added that Complainant is a habitual RTI applicant who filed numerous RTI applications to harass the Respondent Public Authority to clog their working system. He urged the Commission to intervene in the matter and take some action against this misconduct of the complainant.

Page 47 of 56

Decision The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, noted that the respondents have replied to the above RTI applications vide their letters dated 22.06.2023, 15.05.2024, 13.08.2024, 16.08.2024, 09.08.2024, 22.08.2024, 15.08.2024, 23.08.2024, 19.08.2024, 21.08.2024, 20.08.2024 and 27.08.2024. The Commission further observes that there is a delay in providing reply to the Complainant on the above-mentioned RTI applications, for which the Respondent informed the bench that due to some technical reasons owing to merger and restructuring of the organization at the relevant time, the above-

mentioned RTI applications could not be attended within the mandated period. The Respondents apologized for the same and assured that such lapses would not recur in future.

It is noted that the identical issues raised in these matters by the complainant have already been heard by the Commission with the same public authority of their different offices on 14.06.2022 in file No. CIC/CCITP/C/2023/625266 and Ors. and the same was disposed of vide order dated 26.06.2024 wherein following observations have been passed.

At the outset, the Commission observes that identical issues of the Complainant have already been heard on 17.05.2024 and decided on 21.05.2024, by the Commission in Complaint file Nos. CIC/CCITM/C/2023/626734 & ors. of the same Public Authority of different office. Relevant observations of the Commission in the said decisions are reproduced hereinbelow:

"xxxxxxxx The Commission further observes that the Complainant has not filed any First Appeal or Second Appeal in the above-mentioned cases as also in all cases adjudicated by this bench so far, and reasons for the same could not be ascertained as he was not present before the Commission despite notice. In a Complaint case, the Commission cannot give any relief for information under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only restricted role lies is to adjudicate whether the information has been malafidely denied by the CPIO or undue hindrance has been caused by the Respondent. It is noteworthy that the Page 48 of 56 Complainant was not present before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the Respondents and further agitate the matter.

The Commission is not inclined to accept the prayer of the Complainant to impose penalty as well as for recommendation of disciplinary proceedings against the concerned CPIOs in the absence of any mala fide on part of the Respondent. The conduct of the Complainant shows his intention to pressurize the CPIO with the fear of penal action than actual delivery of information to him.

Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 1900 cases of the same Complainant against same and different Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In this regard, it is also worth noting that a total number of 100 complaints cases including the present set of cases listed for today's hearing and the same have been heard together simultaneously. The Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information in each of his RTI Applications with minor changes apparently to pressurize the Public Authority rather than actual interest in getting the information denied to him, if any. This intention of the Complainant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.

xxxxxxxxxx Regarding imposition of penalty to the CPIO/PIO under section 20 of the RTI Act, the Commission took note of the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC & Anrs. WP(C) 3114/2007 vide order dated 03.12.2007 held that:

"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two-year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the public 4 information officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of the information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Page 49 of 56 Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act cannot be issued....."

Emphasis supplied Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:

"Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely. ......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it." In view of the above, the Commission finds that there is no mala fide on part of the respondent while replying to the RTI application. That being so, and in the absence of any merit in the complaint, the same is liable to be dismissed.

The Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 1200 cases of the same Complainant against same/another Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In this regard, it is also worth noting that the instant Complaints listed for today's hearing have been heard together along with other 74 matters of the Complainant simultaneously and the Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications for the same nature of information sought by merely expanding the time span of information sought in each of his RTI Applications apparently to pressurize the public authority rather than actual interest in getting the information denied to him, if any. This intention of the Complainant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizen. It appears that the complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.

It appears that the Complainant has been repeatedly seeking information on similar subject matters, thus using up the time and resources of the Public Authority disproportionately. Such repetitive litigation is counter- productive to the RTI regime, and this aspect has been discussed by the Page 50 of 56 Apex Court in detail in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11), where J. Pasayat had held:

".........It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but expressing our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case... ... ... etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system..........."

Emphasis supplied It is also pertinent to note that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) Vs B Bharathi [WP No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014] has also given its opinion about such vexatious and repetitive litigation crippling the public authorities and held as follows:

"...The action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications;

Page 51 of 56

that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest....."

Emphasis supplied The Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] has also made similar observations:

"....... This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficial Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. ...................."

Emphasis supplied In the other landmark judgement in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Apex Court held as follows:

"...37. ............................ Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties..."

Emphasis supplied Page 52 of 56 In view of this, the Commission finds it pivotal to highlight a recent decision of this bench, wherein aspect of "misuse of the right to information Act by the Appellant" has been explained in a manner. In this regard, ratio laid down in the matter of Nandkishor Gupta v. CPIO, Northwestern Railway, Head Quarter Office, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur - 302017. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:

"The Appellant being a serving employee of the respondent Public Authority has as much right to information as is available to any other citizen of India. However, such a serving employee has an added obligation to frame the request in simplest and most easily understood form possible because he/she knows the circumstances under which his/her colleagues are working while also discharging the additional duty as CPIO and FAA. Therefore, the conduct of the Appellant in the present matter, to say the least, is questionable and is not appreciated.

Accordingly, the appellant is cautioned and admonished wherein he should keep in mind that the RTI Act should be used judiciously, sensibly and responsibly so that purpose of the RTI Act would not be defeated. The Commission leaves it to the concerned disciplinary authority for any consequent action in the matter. "

The Complainant has not been judicious in the use of RTI Act and has been using it as a tool to harass the Public Authority. The Complainant is therefore cautioned to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner."

Notwithstanding the above, the Commission admonishes the conduct of the Complainant as he is not abiding by the repetitive advice of the Commission and filing repetitive similar RTI Applications which is against the spirit of RTI Act and clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. In this regard, the Commission invites attention of the parties towards a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in a case titled Biplab Kumar Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. WPA 3116 of 2022 wherein it was held as under -

"...It appears from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner's ploy is to collect information under the Right to Information Act and thereafter use the said information to harass the private parties as well Page 53 of 56 as the Municipality for unlawful gain. The conduct of the petitioner appears to be plainly harrassive and mala fide.

The averments and allegations made in the writ petition remains unsubstantiated. The writ petition is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed with costs.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-(twenty- five thousand) only to be paid by the petitioner in the office of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within September 30, 2022..."

In view of the above, the Commission observes that the issue having attained finality on the principles of res-judicata may not be opened again. Moreover, the Complainant did not appear before the Commission despite service of notice to contest his cases. Written submissions filed by the Respondent are taken on record and copies of the same are served to the complainant.

The Commission also observes that the complainant has filed his RTI applications before the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), Hyderabad and sought aforesaid information. The respondent informed that since the complainant sought information about the complete Hyderabad Region, the RTI application was transferred to all the various CPIOs and most of them have replied to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention that the complainant (information seeker) is expecting the respondent (PCCIT, Hyderabad) to collect all the information from the different CPIOs under his entire territorial jurisdiction, compile the same and provide it to him which will divert their resources disproportionately. In this regard, the Commission's attention is attracted to para 3 (iii) of DoP&T OM No. 10/2/2008-IR dated 12th June, 2008 (available in public domain), which requires the information seeker to file separate RTI applications to different offices in order to obtain such scattered information. The relevant paras of the said circular are reproduced as under:

"(iii) A person makes an application to a public authority for information, a part of which is available with that public authority and the rest of the information is scattered with more than one other public authorities. In such a case, the PIO of the public authority receiving the application should give information relating to it and advise the applicant to make separate applications to the concerned public authorities for obtaining Page 54 of 56 information from them. If no part of the information sought, is available with it but is scattered with more than one other public authorities, the PIO should inform the applicant that information is not available with the public authority and that the applicant should make separate applications to the concerned public authorities for obtaining information from them. It may be noted that the Act requires the supply of such information only which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. It is beyond the scope of the Act for a public authority to create information.

Collection of information, parts of which are available with different public authorities, would amount to creation of information which a public authority under the Act is not required to do. At the same time, since the information is not related to any one particular public authority, it is not the case where application should be transferred under sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act. It is pertinent to note that sub-section (3) refers to 'another public authority' and not 'other public authorities'. Use of singular form in the Act in this regard is important to note."

In addition to the above, the Commission observes that the complainant has sought information which as per the respondent is scattered in various offices and in various files, the compilation of such information would divert their resources disproportionately. Besides, the information sought appears to be non-specific and indefinite. However, the respondents have tried their best and replied to the complainant in the best possible manner and the same is taken on record.

The Respondent, during the hearing, informed the bench that due to some technical reasons owing to merging and restructuring thrice that has already been submitted in previous cases by Respondent Public Authority, some of the above-mentioned RTI applications might not be attended within the mandated period. The Respondents apologized for the same and assured that such lapses would not recur in future, therefore, the Commission finds no mala fide on part of the CPIOs.

Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 2200 cases of the same Complainant against same and Page 55 of 56 different Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In this regard, it is also worth noting that a total number of 96 complaints cases including the present set of cases listed for today's hearing and the same have been heard together simultaneously. The Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information in each of his RTI Applications to pressurize the Public Authority rather than actual interest in getting the information denied to him, if any. This intention of the Complainant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.

The Commission, like on several occasions in the past, again advises the Complainant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act in future.

With these observations, the instant Complaints are disposed of accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 56 of 56 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission

Radha Raman Tripathy vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 6 September, 2024