Central Information Commission
Sanjeet Madan Mohan Roy vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 23 March, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCITN/A/2024/628236
Sanjeet Madan Mohan Roy .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Principal
Director of Income Tax (Inv.),
1st Floor, BSNL RTTC Building,
Seminary Hills, Nagpur - 440006 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23.02.2026
Date of Decision : 23.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.03.2024
CPIO replied on : 27.03.2024
First appeal filed on : 04.04.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 24.05.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 02.07.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.03.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Subject matter to Tax Evasion Petition filed on dated 05th of February 2024.CIC/CCITN/A/2024/628236 Page 1 of 6
Under Right to Information Act, 2005 I need information regarding the above-mentioned petition.
This is with reference to the Tax Evasion Petition filed on dated 05/02/2024 against Shri. Bimal Banerjee, Smt. Tapati Banerjee residence of Katwa Palita Road, Village - Bowrah, P.O. - Pindira, Distt. - Katwa, Purba Barddhaman, Via Majhigram-713143, West Bengal and their daughter Brotati Bimal Banerjee residence of c/o Plot No. 20, Venkateshwara Colony, Near Gajanan Mandir, Godhani, Godhani (Railways), Nagpur - 441111, Maharashtra the subsequent communication by the undersigned with your department and vice-versa. Please provide me the following information
1. Whether Shri. Bimal Banerjee, Smt. Tapati Banerjee and Brototi Bimal Banerjee residence of above addresses is an income tax assesses.
2. If all of them are income tax assesses, has all of them filling their income tax returns on a regular basis.
3. Whether the income shown is below or above the claimed given limit at the time of marriage.
4. What action your esteemed department has initiated against Shri. Bimal Banerjee, Smt. Tapati Banerjee and Brotati Bimal Banerjee in view of the disclosure made by their own daughter under her own sworn assertions in various proceedings.
5. For how many times notices were sent to above persons to investigate in TEP filled from dated 05/02/2024.
6. If notices were sent to them then has Shri. Bimal Banerjee, Smt. Tapati Banerjee and Brotati Bimal Banerjee attended all hearings at Income Tax Department office with respect to proceedings initiated against them.
7. If not, on what dates they have not joined the proceedings and what reasons they has assigned to the same."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 27.03.2024 stating as under:
CIC/CCITN/A/2024/628236 Page 2 of 6"2.2 Your complaint has been received in this office and is under process.
2.3 The attention of the applicant is invited to the provision of section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 read with the Second Schedule thereto wherein the Director General of Income-tax (Investigation) has been brought out of the scope of the RTI Act, 2005 inserted at serial No.16, vide Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension's Notification No. GSR-235(E) dated 28.03.2008. The office of the Principal Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Nagpur falls under the jurisdiction and control of Director General of Income-tax (Investigation), Pune therefore, the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 are not applicable to this office.
The specific provisions of Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced as under-
24. Act not to apply to certain organizations (1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule, being organizations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organizations to that Government.
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub section.
Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, such Information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of receipt of request.
2.4 Without prejudice to the above, the information sought is personal information of third party. The disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public Interest. The disclosure of which could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of Individual. There is no larger public interest in the discloser of such Information. Hence the information sought is also exempt from disclosure as per provision of sec. 8(1)(j) of the RTI ACT 2005."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.04.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 24.05.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/CCITN/A/2024/628236 Page 3 of 64. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Shri Akash Yadav, Dy Director of Income Tax/CPIO, appeared through video conference.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 02.07.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service. Thus, Regulation No. 10 of the Central Information Commission Management Regulations 2007 has not been complied with by the Appellant.
6. The Appellant inter alia submitted that he is not seeking any confidential investigation records, statements, internal correspondence, or material collected during inquiry. He simply wanted to know the status of his TEP.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia reiterated the CPIO's reply and the FAA's order.
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observed that the bulk of the information sought by the Appellant pertains to third-party personal and financial details as well as investigation-related aspects, which are rightly exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and also covered under the exemption provided under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
9. However, the Commission notes that the Appellant is the complainant who had filed the Tax Evasion Petition and is seeking to know the status or outcome of the said complaint. In this regard, the Commission finds merit in the contention of the Appellant that he is entitled to know the broad CIC/CCITN/A/2024/628236 Page 4 of 6 outcome/status of his complaint without seeking disclosure of any sensitive or confidential investigation material.
10. The Commission draws support from the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kamal Bhasin vs. Radha Krishna Mathur and Ors. [W.P.(C) 7218/2016 dated 01.11.2017], wherein it was held that a complainant is entitled to know the outcome of the complaint made by him, though not entitled to internal notings or detailed investigation records. The relevant observation is that while confidential deliberations may remain protected, disclosure of the action taken on the complaint does not infringe upon any protected interest.
11. In view of the above, the Commission holds that while detailed information sought by the Appellant is exempt from disclosure, the limited information regarding the current status/action taken on the Tax Evasion Petition filed by the Appellant can be disclosed. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to provide a clear and categorical update regarding the current status of the Appellant's TEP dated 05.02.2024, without disclosing any confidential details of investigation, third-party personal information, or internal records. The above direction shall be complied with within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
12. The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Sd/-
(S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date CIC/CCITN/A/2024/628236 Page 5 of 6 Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the Principal Director of Income Tax (Inv.), 1st Floor, BSNL RTTC Building, Seminary Hills, Nagpur - 440006 CIC/CCITN/A/2024/628236 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)