Central Information Commission
Mr.S P Goyal vs Cbdt on 29 July, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.308, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
01.File No.CIC/RM/A/2012/000338/LS
02.File No.CIC/RM/A/2012/000161/LS
03.File No.CIC/RM/A/2012/000143/LS
04.File No.CIC/RM/A/2012/000164/LS
05.File No.CIC/RM/A/2012/000156/LS
06.File No.CIC/RM/A/2012/000157/LS
07.File No.CIC/RM/A/2012/000264/LS
08.File No.CIC/RM/A/2012/000142/LS
09.File No.CIC/RM/A/2012/000158/LS
10.File No.CIC/RM/A/2012/000159/LS
11.File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000789/LS
12.File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000197/LS
13.File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000101/LS
14.File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000762/LS
15.File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000784/LS
16.File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000765/LS
17.File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/004050/LS
18.File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000102/LS
19.File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/004046/LS
20.File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/004048/LS
21.File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000196/LS
22.File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000680/LS
23.File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000498/LS
24.File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000204/LS
25.File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000186/LS
26.File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000187/LS
27.File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000188/LS
28.File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000103/LS
Appellant : S.P.Goyal
Respondent : Income Tax Department, Mumbai
Date of hearing : 29.7.2013 Date of decision : 29.7.2013
The above cited 28 appeals have been filed by Shri S.P.Goyal. These are being decided through a common order that follows.
2. These matters are heard today dated 29.7.13. The appellant is present along with his daughter Ms.Aruna Rathi and grandson Shri Sahil Goyal. Income Tax Department is represented by the following officers:
1. Shri A.S.Ramteke, ITO 12(2), Mumbai;
2. Shri Shekhar Gajbhiye, ACIT 12(2), Mumbai;
3. Shri K.D.Sangwekar, TRO 12(2), Mumbai;
4. Ms.Veena Kathuria, TRO (1), Ludhiana;
5. Shri Sumeet Gakhar, ACIT, O/o CCIT VIII, Mumbai;
6. Shri K.Singh, ACIT, RangeI (1), Mumbai;
7. Shri Rakesh Jha, DCIT 1(1), Mumbai;
8. Shri Hemant Lal, CIT (Appeals);
9. Inspector Suresh Kumar; &
10. Shri U.K.Jha, S.O., CBDT (1) File No.CIC/RM/A/2012/000338/LS
3. In the RTI application dated 1.11.10, the appellant has stated that this Commission had passed an order on 15.1.09 in F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00683 directing the CPIO to furnish documents @ Rs.2/ per page but the said order has not been complied with. The said order is perused. Paras 6 & 7 of the order are reproduced below:
"6. The submission of the Appellant has force inasmuch as no justification whatsoever has been given for imposition of fee at the rate of Rs.50/ per page in the cryptic order passed by CPIO, as against the fee of Rs.2/ per page prescribed in the Rules framed by the Central Government. Hence, the order passed by the CPIO is not sustainable in law.
DECISION
7. In view of the above, Shri Suresh Kamble, CPIO, is hereby directed to allow inspection of the relevant files by the Appellant on 05/02/2008 as mutually agreed by the parties and to provide him copies of requisite documents at the fee prescribed by the Central Government."
4. In view of the above, the CPIOs of the Income Tax Department are hereby directed to supply documents @ Rs.2/ per page, failing which they would render themselves liable to penal action.
(2) File No.CIC/RM/A/2012/000161/LS
5. Vide RTI application dated 3.1.12, the appellant had sought the following information:
"Withreference to letter No.Addl.CIT/Rg.12(2)/Grievances/201112 dated 8.12.2011, please give me the following information:
1. Please give detail of various grievances with my file number and dated considered vide your above letter.
2. Please fix the date and time to inspect the file relevant to you above letter dated 8.12.11 and get it done within ten days, so that if required, I may have certified copies also will provided time of thirty days.
3. Please provide certified copy of note sheets relevant to you letter dated 8.12.11 for charges another postal orders is enclosed herewith Postal order No.011847621 dated 24.12.11 of Rs.10/
4. Please inform under whose direction you have decided my grievances."
6. The CPIO had passed a longwinded order dated 30.1.12 without addressing the core issues raised by the appellant. In my opinion, the information sought by the appellant at paras 2 & 3 of the RTI application is specific. Shri Ramteke, CPIO, has not been able to explain as to whether he had not offered inspection of the relevant records to the appellant.
7. In the premises, notice may be issued to Shri A.S. Ramteke, ITO 12(2), Mumbai to show cause why penal action should not be initiated against him for not responding to paras 2 & 3 of the RTI application. The matter is adjourned to 26.8.13. Shri Ramteke will remain present.
(3) File No.CIC/RM/A/2012/000164/LS (4) File No.CIC/RM/A/2012/000143/LS
8. In the RTI application dated 7.9.11, the appellant had sought copies of documents submitted by Department's lawyers in the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.ITXA/4049/2010 CIT(1) V/s. Cannon Steel P. Ltd. Besides, he had also sought the details of expenditure incurred by the Department on its counsels as also total hearings attended by Ms.Anamika Malhotra.
9. As regards para 1 of the RTI application, CPIO, vide letter dated 27.9.11, had informed the appellant that requested documents had already been provided to him. However, as regards the rest of the paras, CPIO had taken the bland stand that the requested information was not being maintained by the Department.
10. However, on appeal, FAA, in order dated 30.11.11, had reversed the decision of the CPIO and had directed him to provide information on all paras to the appellant. However, during the hearing, the appellant submits that FAA's order has not been complied with. On a query from the Commission, Shri Rakesh Jha, DCIT 1(1) submits that there is nothing on record to suggest that FAA's order has been complied with.
11. The Commission's order was required to be complied with by Shri P.S.Walia, ACIT 1(1), Mumbai, as he was the CPIO at the relevant time. In the premises, notice may be issued to Shri P.S.Walia to show cause as to why penal action should not be initiated against him for not responding to paras 2 & 3 of the RTI application. He is directed to be present before the Commission on 26th August 2013 at 1030 hrs. Shri Rakesh Jha is directed to serve a copy of this order on Shri P.S.Walia for compliance.
(5) File No.CIC/RM/A/2012/000156/LS
12. In the RTI application dated 27.12.11, the appellant had sought certified copies of pages 496 to 498 of Department's letter dated 21.10.11. Besides, he had also sought inspection of the records relating to the Assessment Year etc.
13. During the hearing, Shri Ramteke submits that as per his order dated 18.1.12, the appellant was allowed to inspect the documents in the matter in hand. In the premises, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous.
(6) File No.CIC/RM/A/2012/000157/LS
14. Vide RTI application dated 20.12.11, the appellant had sought the following information:
"1. Please provide certified copy of the letter sent to Registrar of firm regarding M/s.Sanjeev Woollen Mills.
2. Please provide certified copy of reply received from Registrar of firms regarding firm M/s.Sanjeev Woollen Mills to the above letter.
3. Please inform the ID of File in which this correspondence is recorded and inform total no. of pages and no. of note sheets in the said file.
4. Please fix date and time to inspect the said file."
15. The CPIO had passed a long winded order dated 11.1.12 without categorically responding to the queries raised by the appellant. The real question is whether the CPIO is holding information requested for by the appellant and, if yes, whether he is agreeable to supply it and, if not, the reasons therefor. The CPIO has not answered these queries in a clear and categorical manner.
16. On appeal, the AA had passed order dated 1.3.12 wherein he had taken the stand that appellant was not entitled to this information as it related to the income tax proceedings.
17. In my opinion, the orders passed by the CPIO and AA are not sustainable in law and are hereby set aside. The CPIO is hereby directed to disclose para wise information to the appellant, free of cost, in three weeks time.
(7) File No.CIC/RM/A/2012/000264/LS (8) File No.CIC/RM/A/2012/000142/LS
18. In para 07 of the RTI application dated 3.1.12, the appellant had, interalia, sought inspection of the files relating to the assessment of M/s.Monika India. The appellant fairly submits that he has taken inspection of the relevant records in response to some other RTI application but no inspection has been offered to him in this particular case. It is, thus, his contention that CPIO has failed in the discharge of his duties.
19. On the other hand, Shri Sumeet Gakhar , ACIT would submit that the then CPIO Shri Rajendra Chandekar had passed an order dated 30.1.12 in the matter and that it does not make any difference whether appellant has been given inspection in this matter or in any other matter.
20. I accept Shri Gakhar's submission. As the appellant has already been given inspection in this very matter, the appeal is misconceived. Dismissed.
(9) File No.CIC/RM/A/2012/000158/LS
21. In the RTI application dated 27.12.11, the appellant had sought the following information:
"1. Please inform whether all records from ITO ward 13(1), Room No.282, 2 Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai were transferred to ITO 12 (2)(10 or nd not. If transferred, inform the date and provide list of files transferred from ward 13(1) to ITO 12(2)(1).
2. Please fix the date and time to inspect all the records from 1.4.92 onwards of Ward No.13(1) which are transferred subsequently to ITO 12(2)(1), Mumbai.
3. Please inform whether your affidavit is valid for the records received by ITO 12(20(10 from Ward No.13(1) or not."
22. The CPIO had passed a long winded order dated 17.1.12 quoting irrelevant authorities therein but without addressing the core issues raised by the appellant. In the premises, the order passed by the CPIO is hereby set aside and he is directed to revisit the matter and provide information on paras 1 and 2, free of cost. However, no information needs to be provided on para 3.
(10) File No.CIC/RM/A/2012/000159/LS
23. In the RTI application dated 6.1.12, the appellant had sought information running into eight paras regarding the assessment of M/S.Sanjeev Woollen Mills etc. The CPIO had passed a long winded order dated 30.1.12 without providing para wise information to the appellant. However, during the hearing, it transpires that the appellant has been given inspection of the records relating to M/S.Sanjeev Woollen Mills in some other matter in compliance of the CIC's order and the inspection is continuing. As per the appellant's request, it is ordered that no unreasonable restriction would be imposed on the inspection. Besides, CPIO will also respond to each para of the RTI application.
(11) CIC/DS/A/2012/000789/LS : 24 The appellant does not press the matter. Hence, closed. (12) CIC/DS/A/2012/000197/LS :
25. After hearing the parties, it is ordered that copy of Rules/Regulations/Citizen's Charter prescribing time frame for disposal of public grievances, if any, may be supplied to the appellant, free of cost. (13) CIC/DS/A/2012/000101/LS :
26. Vide RTI application dated 15.7.2010, the appellant had sought inspection of the Demand Report File Vol.I etc. The CPIO, in letter dated 11.8.2010, had informed the appellant that he had taken the inspection of the relevant records on 19th & 21st February, 2008. He was again given opportunity of taking inspection on 2.3.2010 which the appellant did not avail.
27. Be that as it may, the CPIO is hereby directed to give inspection of the up dated records to the appellant again.
(14) CIC/DS/A/2012/000762/LS :
28. In the RTI application dated 10.10.2011, the appellant had sought the File Number of the letter dated 19/20.4.1994 received from the office of Director of Income Tax(Investigation), Chandigarh, and the total number of pages in the file etc. The appellant had also sought inspection of that file. However, vide letter dated 4.11.2012, Shri P.S. Walia, ACIT 1(1), Mumbai, had informed the appellant that it was not possible to locate/trace the relevant file.
29. In the premises, the present CPIO is hereby directed to try to trace out the file and if the same is traced out, give inspection thereof to the appellant.
(15) CIC/DS/A/2012/000784/LS :
29. In the RTI application dated 9.11.2012, the appellant had essentially sought inspection of the files relating to M/s Monika India Ltd. During the hearing, it transpires that he has already taken inspection of these records. However, during the hearing, the appellant submits that he would like to take inspection of files in which the appellant (S.P.Goyal) is the assessee.
30. As the appellant is seeking inspection of his own file, the CPIO is hereby directed to give inspection thereof on a mutually convenient date and time. CIC/DS/A/2012/000765/LS :
31. In the RTI application dated 11.11.2011, Ms. Smita Pawar had sought information regarding the constitution of a firm called Sanjeev Woolen Mills from 1987 onwards. The CPIO had refused to disclose this information on the ground that this was third party information.
32. The view taken by the CPIO is technically correct. Yet the submission of the appellant that Ms. Smita Pawar works for him and he is the partner of Sanjeev Woolen Mills cannot be disregarded. Hence, in my opinion, it would be expedient to direct the CPIO to give inspection of the records relating to the constitution of Sanjeev Woolen Mills,of which Shri Goyal claims to be the partner.
(17) CIC/DS/A/2012/004050/LS :
33. In the RTI application dated 13.8.2012, the appellant had sought information on 17 paras. However, the core paras are para nos. 01, 16 & 17. These paras are reproduced below : "1. Please confirm whether following amounts are duly credited by you on account of S.P. Goyal PAN No. AACPG2988H Date of Siezer Amount 4 Dec93 500,000.00 10 Dec93 300,000.00 16 Oct93 1,200,000.00 14 Oct93 730,500.00 4Dec93 50,000.00
16. Regarding following para of my letter dated 30.05.2011 which is reproduce herein. Please inform what action is taken till date to auction the property. Please provide certified copies of your total file under which recovery proceedings are going on as well as regarding auction of property of Sanjeev Woollen Mills Focal Point "Further I request you to kindly auction the following property in the name of Sanjeev Woollen Mills though as per latest Partnership deed that property relates to the undersigned, Kindly Auction the property as soon as possible according to the information stump duty rate fixed by the Authorities for such lands ins Focal Point is Rs. 7200 per squre yard therefore market rate would be more. Moreover Plot is having two side road, front and back. The property value may fetch over Rs. 13 Crores."
17. Please inform the amount of interest on Rs. 1,00,000/ recovered by your office forcibly on dated 8.12.2004 against the demand of 992000. Please give full detail of interest year wise and confirm the interest is worked out from 8.12.2004 or give the actual date taken by you to worked out the interest."
34. I have seen the CPIO's order dated 19.9.2011 in which he has responded to none of these paras in specific terms. Hence, the matter is remanded to the CPIO with the direction to respond to the above extracted paras in clear and categorical terms.
(18) CIC/DS/A/2012/000102/LS : (19) CIC/DS/A/2012/004046/LS :
35. The appellant does not press the matter. Hence, these matters are ordered to be closed.
(20) CIC/DS/A/2012/004048/LS :
36. After hearing the parties, it is ordered that as per the appellant's RTI application dated 4.8.2011, he may be given inspection of total seized records in respect of M/s. Monika India; M/s. Sanjeev Woollen Mills and other relevant records. It is made clear that the CPIO will offer complete and full records for inspection to the appellant.
(21) CIC/DS/A/2012/000196/LS :
37. The appellant does not press the matter. Hence, it is ordered to be closed.
(22) CIC/DS/A/2012/000680/LS :
38. The appellant had filed a grievance complaint with CCITVII, Mumbai, against ITO 12(2)(1). To his astonishment, the CCIT had referred the grievance complaint to the same ITO against whom he had lodged the complaint. In the RTI application dated 3.11.2012, the appellant had sought to know whether it was proper on the part of CCIT to have acted in the manner he did.
39. It is explained to the appellant that though the decision of the CCIT does not appear to be based on sound administrative principles, the Commission has no jurisdiction to intervene in the administrative matters.
(23) CIC/DS/A/2012/000498/LS:
40. The appellant does not wish to pursue the matter. Hence, it is ordered to be closed.
(24) CIC/DS/A/2012/000204/LS
41. In the RTI application dated 15.9.2011, the appellant had raised 06 queries about the assessment order passed by the competent authority in case of M/s Sanjeev Woollen Mills Ltd. In my opinion, the CPIO is not competent to respond to the queries raised by the appellant in a quasi judicial order passed by the concerned Assessing Officer. There are various other legal remedies available to him.
42. Be that as it may, the appellant now submits that he wants to have certified copies of the entire documents relating to the matter in hand. In the premises, the CPIO is hereby directed to provide certified photocopies of the entire records of the TRO Recovery Folder on payment of requisite fee.
(25) CIC/DS/A/2012/000186/LS
43. The core point raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 17.7.2011 is the inspection of the search folder received by the CPIO from the Central Circle - 20, Mumbai. In addition to this, the appellant has raised as many other 23 queries. However, the main point raised by the appellant is inspection of the search folder as noted hereinabove.
44. It is noticed that the CPIO has passed a long winded order dated 11.8.2011, without addressing the core issue. The AA order dated 22.11.2011 also does not help matters.
45. During the hearing, the officers present before the Commission are agreeable to give inspection of search folder to the appellant. Ordered accordingly.
(26) CIC/DS/A/2012/000187/LS
46. The appellant had addressed the RTI application dated 20.7.2011, to the Revenue Secretary, Govt. of India, seeking following information regarding the notice dated 16.6.2011 sent by one Shri S. H. Bohra u/s 80 CPC: "1. Please inform the date of receipt of 80 CPC notice dated 16.6.2011 sent by Sh. S. H. Bohra to the Secretary (Revenue), Ministry of Finance, govt. of India, Dept of Revenue (Income Tax) North Block, New Delhi.
2. Please inform whether any reply is sent to Advocate Sh. S. H. Bohra. If sent, please provide copy of your reply, the charges for which will be paid on hearing from you.
3. Please inform, have you taken reports from the concerned officers (notices) in the 80 CPC notice alongwith the Secretary (Revenue).
4. Please inform the rules and procedure of the govt. to deal with such notices against the officers who acted malafide to extracts illegal money.
5. Please inform the name of the concerned Secretary who is concerned with the said 80 CPC notice.
6. Please inform the action taken by the Secretary on receipt of this notice.
7. Please inform the name and status of the person who is now dealing with this 80 CPC notice."
47. This was responded to by Shri A. K. Bhardwaj, Under Secretary, Government of India, vide letter dated 15.9.2011. The said letter is reproduced below: "Please refer to your letter dated 20.7.2011, which was received in RTI Cell of Department of Revenue on 26.7.2011. RTI Cell on 27.7.2011, has sent the sme to InvI, who in turn returned the same to RTI Cell. RTI cell again on 8.8.2011 has send it to P.S. of Chairman, CBDT, who has marked it to Member A&J, who in turn marked it to CIT (A&J), which was received in this office on 22.8.2011, through Deputy Secretary, ITJ.
As the subject matter is not related to functioning of Income Tax judicial Section, same was sent to D.S. (HQ) on 24.8.2011. However, D.s. (HQ) has again sent it back to under singed on 14.9.2011, with the noting that 80 CPC notice received from S. H. Bohra was sent to CIT(A&J) on 30.6.2011, along with copy of receipt details.
However, the said notice under 80 CPC has not been received by this office, therefore, the reply pertaining to your queries as per information available with undersigned is as follows: Q. 1. Please inform the date of receipt of 80 CPC notice dated 16.6.2011 sent by S.H. Bohra to Secretary (Revenue), Ministry of Finance, govt. of India, Dept of Revenue (Income Tax), north Block, New Delhi.
Ans. No information is available with the undersigned that when same was received by Secretary (Revenue), however, as per receipt details sent by D.S. (HQ), same has been diarised by Secretary (Revenue) on 27.7.2011. Q. 2. Please inform whether any reply is sent to Advocate Sh. S. H. Bohra. If sent, please provide copy of your reply, the charges for which will be paid on hearing from you.
Ans. As he notice was not received in this office, thus no reply has been sent to S. H. Bohra by this office.
Q. 3. Please inform, have you taken reports from the concerned officers (notices) in the 80 CPC notice alongwith the Secretary (Revenue). Ans. As the notice itself has not been received by this office, no report whatsoever has been called from anyone.
Q. 4. Please inform the rules and procedure of the govt. to deal with such notices against the officers who acted malafide to extracts illegal money. Ans. This matter is not dealt by this section. Your application is being transferred u/s 6 (3) of RTI Act to U.S. (V&L), CBDT for reply of same. Q. 5. Please inform the name of the concerned Secretary who is concerned with the said 80 CPC notice.
Ans. As per the information available in this office D.S. (ITJ) is one of person who deals with 80 CPC notices, but not related to complaint against any officer per say. Who are the other officers concerned with 80 CPC are not available in this office. This information may be available with CPIO o/o J.S. (Admn.), Department of Revenue, therefore, Q. 6. Please inform the action taken by the Secretary on receipt of this notice. Q. 7. Please inform the name and status of the person who is now dealing with this 80 CPC notice.
Ans. 6.&7. As clarified above that this notice has not been received by this office, thus no information is available in this regard."
48. It is pertinent to mention that in response to para 01 of the RTI application, Shri Bhardwaj has acknowledged receipt of the said notice in the office of Revenue Secretary, on 27.7.2011. But in response to query No. 04 of the RTI application, Shri Bhardwaj mentions that the RTI application is being transferred to Under Secretary (V&L) CBDT for reply u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act.
49. It is common place that as per section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a notice is required to be issue to the Secretary to the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, before the institution of a civil suit. The appellant had issued the notice to Revenue Secretary, through his counsel. It is the Secretary's office who is required to respond to the notice. Hence, the RTI application in hand could not have been transferred to CBDT u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act. Hence, the CPIO of CBDT is hereby directed to transfer the RTI application back to the CPIO of Office of Revenue Secretary, for responding to the RTI application expeditiously.
(27) CIC/DS/A/2012/000188/LS
50. The appellant does not wish to press the matter. Hence, it is ordered to be closed.
(28) CIC/DS/A/2012/000103/LS
51. In the RTI application dated 22.6.2010, the appellant had sought to know the action taken by the Income Tax Department on the notice sent by Shri Heera Lal Goyal. The CPIO, in order dated 16.7.2010, had taken the stand that the appellant was not seeking any information u/s 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In my opinion, the view taken by the CPIO is not correct. The appellant, indeed, is seeking information u/s 2 (f) but he is seeking third party information.
52. However, during the hearing, the appellant submits that Shri Heera Lal Goyal was his partner, thereby entitling him to seek this information. I cannot accept his submission. Shri Heera Lal Goyal could well have been his partner but his privacy cannot be invaded u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The appeal is misconceived. Dismissed.
53. These are long pending matters. The CPIOs are hereby directed to comply with this Commission's directions recorded hereinabove in five weeks in all respects in each individual case.
M.L.Sharma) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy . Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission. (K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Address of parties
1. The CPIO & The Income Tax Officer - 12 (2)(1) Room No.137, 1st Floor Aaykar Bhawan M.K.Road Mumbai 400 020
2. The CPIO & The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax - 1(1) Aaykar Bhawan M.K.Road Mumbai 400 020
3. The CPIO & The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (HQ) Aaykar Bhawan M.K.Road Mumbai 400 020
4. Shri S.P.Goyal 103A, Krishna Chambers 59, New Marine Lines Mumbai 400 020