Central Information Commission
D Govindan vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 4 May, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos: CIC/CCACH/A/2024/134045 and CIC/CCACH/A/2024/134009
D Govindan .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office the Income Tax Officer
(I & CI), ITO - 2, Annexe Building,
Aayakar Bhawan, 121, M.G. Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600034
CPIO,
Office the Income Tax Officer
(I & CI), Room No. 511,
5th Floor New Block, No. 44 Williams Road,
Cantonment, Trichy- 620001, .... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 20.04.2026
Date of Decision : 04.05.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The issues raised by the Appellant in both the above cases
CIC/CCACH/A/2024/134045 and CIC/CCACH/A/2024/134009 are identical.
Therefore, it is felt desirable to pass a common order in both cases.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08.05.2024
File Nos: CIC/CCACH/A/2024/134045 and CIC/CCACH/A/2024/134009
Page 1 of 10
CPIO replied on : 04.06.2024
First appeal filed on : 22.06.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.07.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 17.10.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.05.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"RTI Act of 2005-Lodging Application in the case of Trichy Uraiyur and Chennai Sengundram connected Registration Department Officers Raid conducted by Income Tax Department of Intelligence and Criminal Investigation Officials Seeking Sought of Information replies copies Regarding.
I am a Senior Advocate, practicing Chennai High Court and overall, in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry States, Forums for the past of 20 years. I am appearing in ADJ-II Court Trichy District and Thiruvalluvar District Courts too. I came to know about that your Income Tax Department Intelligence and Criminal Investigation officials were conducted official raids vice, Trichy Uraiyur and Chennai Sengundram in Tamil Nadu Registration Department Offices and seized above worth Rs.3,000/- Crore registration documents which are all manipulated by the registration Departments officials the same related matter had been Telecasted THINATHANDHI T.V. Media Chennai and the same was recorded in our mobiles. Hence, I request the Hon'ble Public Information officer kindly be furnished the following documents attested copies under 2005 of RTI Act. In the Principal of Justice according to law.
Further I submit your department officials conducted the above said raids in the respective offices the following your department vehicle were also utilized by them, I) Vehicle No.TN 90-H-0754, Income Tax Department Intelligence and Criminal Investigation Salem, 2) TN 06-AA-7513. Income Tax Department.
II. Requiring documents copies
1) First Information reports of Trichy Uraiyur and Chennai Sengundram,
2) Intimation reports of Trichy Uraiyur and Chennai Sengundram, File Nos: CIC/CCACH/A/2024/134045 and CIC/CCACH/A/2024/134009 Page 2 of 10
3) Mahazers copies which were prepared at Trichy Uraiyur and Chennai Sengundram, raids places.
4) Sworn Statements, Deposed by concern Tamilnadu Registration Department officials before Income Tax Department Officers at Trichy Uraiyur and Chennai Sengundrum respectively."
2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 04.06.2024 stating as under:
"1. There is no such document is maintained in this office.
2. There is no such document is maintained in this office.
3. The information sought for could not be provided as per the section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 as it is a part of official document containing information that would impede the process of investigation and apprehension or prosecution of the offenders.
4. The information sought for could not be provided as per the section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 as it is a part of official document containing information that would impede the process of investigation and apprehension or prosecution of the offenders."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.06.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 22.07.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. 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.
File Nos: CIC/CCACH/A/2024/134045 and CIC/CCACH/A/2024/134009 Page 3 of 10 Respondent: Shri S.K. Moorthy, Income Tax Officer/CPIO (OSD), I&CI, Trichy and Shri M. Ramanathan, CPIO/Income Tax Officer-2, Chennai appeared through video conference.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC 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 the information was sought on behalf of his clients, namely Shri M. Jalaldeen and his wife, Smt. Salmabeevi. He stated that his clients had availed a loan/advance from Jayapriya Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., with whom certain documents were deposited in that regard. He further submitted that in connection with the said matter, the requested information was essential; however, the same has not been furnished by the Respondent Authority till the date of hearing.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 16.04.2026 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
"1. Background of the Case:
1.1. The Directorate of Intelligence and Criminal Investigation (I&CI) is entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring timely, complete and accurate filing of Statement of Financial Transaction (SFT)/Statement of Reportable Accounts (SRA). The core responsibility of I&CI Directorate relates to effective compliance management of Section 285BA of the Act, 1961 related to the filing of SFT/SRA by various Reporting Entities (REs). It is not a routine investigation agency of the Income Tax Department as presumed by the appellant.
1.2. As per the Provisions of Rule 114E of the Income Tax Rules, the Inspector-General appointed under Section 3 of the Registration Act, 1908 or Registrar or Sub-Registrar appointed under Section 6 of that Act has to File Nos: CIC/CCACH/A/2024/134045 and CIC/CCACH/A/2024/134009 Page 4 of 10 furnish "Statement of Financial Transaction (SFT 012)" in Form No. 61 A (annually) for the purchase or sale by any person of immovable property for an amount of thirty lakh rupees or more or valued by the stamp valuation authority referred to in Section 50C of the Income Tax Act at thirty lakh rupees or more.
1.3. Similarly, as per the Provisions of Rule 114D of the Income Tax Rules, the above said authority as to furnish a statement in Form No. 61 (half-
yearly) to the Director of Income-tax (Intelligence and Criminal Investigation) in respect of Non PAN cases for the sale or purchase of any immovable property for an amount exceeding ten lakh rupees or valued by stamp valuation authority referred to in Section 50C of the Income Tax Act at an amount exceeding ten lakh rupees.
1.4. All the above statements are being filed by the Reporting Entities (REs) [The Sub Registrar, Woraiyur, Trichy in this case) through online mode to the System Directorate of the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
1.5. The role of the Intelligence and Criminal Investigation (I &CI) is very limited with reference to the Sections 285BA (4) and 285BA (5) of the Income Tax Act read with Income Tax Rules 114D and 114E. Based on the above Provisions, the I&CI conducted a spot verification on 04.07.2023 in the office of the Reporting Entity (RE), viz., The Sub Registrar, Woraiyur, Trichy, in which certain discrepancies and omissions were found for the period from 2017-18 to 2022-23. When the explanation called for the same, the Sub Registrar has stated that due to huge volume of data, they could not report all the reports where the transaction amount exceeded Rs. 30 Lakhs or more and also one new Sub Registrar office was created recently at Thillai Nagar carving out of jurisdiction of Woraiyur office. The Sub Registrar assured to rectify the same by filing original/correction statement within 7 days. The same is recorded as sworn statement under Section 133(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, from the Sub Registrar. The Mahazarnama was also issued to the Sub Registrar, Woraiyur, Trichy, detailing the survey proceedings and Officers / officials present and also documents impounded, after completion of Survey Proceedings on 05.07.2023 at 6.30 A.M. The appellant is not privy to the information as per the Provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 since there are details in respect of huge number of third parties.
File Nos: CIC/CCACH/A/2024/134045 and CIC/CCACH/A/2024/134009 Page 5 of 10
2. GIST OF RTI APPLICATION FILED BY SHRI. D. GOVINDAN:
The applicant, vide RTI application dated 08.05.2024, has introduced himself as a Senior Advocate, practicing in Chennai High Court and overall in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry States, Forums of the past twenty years. The applicant has stated that he came to know the information through the telecast of Thinathandhi TV Media, Chennai, that the Income tax Department has seized documents worth Rs.3,000/- crores, which are all manipulated by the registration Department officials, during the course of spot verification carried out in the Sub-Registrar Office, Red Hills and the Sub-Registrar Office, Uraiyur. The applicant had sought attested copies of the following documents under RTI Act, 2005:
1) First Information reports of Trichy Uraiyur and Chennai Sengundram,
2) Intimation reports of Trichy Uraiyur and Chennai Sengundram,
3) Mahazers copies which were prepared at Trichy Uraiyur and Chennai Sengundram, raids places.
4) Sworn Statements, Deposed by concern Tamilnadu Registration Department officials before Income Tax Department Officers at Trichy Uraiyur and Chennai Sengundrum respectively.
3. DISPOSAL OF RTI APPLICATION FILED BY SHRI. D. GOVINDAN:
The CPIO vide Order under Section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 22.05.2024 in F.No. RTI/ITO/I&CI/TRY/2025-25/01 had disposed of the application on the information sought in respect of spot verification conducted in the SRO, Woraiyur, Trichy as under:
"1 and 2. There is no such document is maintained in this office.
3 and 4. The information sought for could not be provided as per the section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 as it is a part of official document containing information that would impede the process of investigation and apprehension or prosecution of the offenders."
3.2. Aggrieved by the above Order, the applicant filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority / Additional Director of Income tax (Intelligence & File Nos: CIC/CCACH/A/2024/134045 and CIC/CCACH/A/2024/134009 Page 6 of 10 Criminal Investigation), Chennai, on 22.06.2024, seeking copies of the same documents The First Appellate Authority, vide proceedings in F.No.1/RTI/Addl.DIT/I&CI/2024-25 dated 22.07.2024, has disposed off the appeal as under:
"5.2. ... The case on which the information is sought by the appellant is a Survey case u/s 133A of the Income tax Act, 1961, as mentioned earlier. Providing the above information would impede the process of investigation being conducted by the department in the case as covered in the above section 8(1) (h) of RTI Act, 2005.
5.3. In view of the above, the order issued by the CPIO, the Income Tax Officer, Intelligence & Criminal Investigation, Trichy, is correct and is in order."
3.3. Aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate Authority, the applicant has filed present appeal vide application dated 17.10.2024 before the Second Appellate Authority / Central Information Commission, New Delhi, with the request to direct the Income Tax Department to provide certified copies of the said records under the provision of the RTI Act. The case is posted for hearing on 20.04.2026 by the Central Information Commission with the directions that the CPIO should appear personally through video conferencing from Trichy.
4. Submission of the CPIO before the Hon'ble Central Information Commission:
4.1. The CPIO, considering the status of the case at the time of receipt of the RTI application, has invoked the Provisions of Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 and disposed of the same without providing information/documents sought by the applicant. Considering the facts and circumstances, the first Appellate Authority concurred with the orders of the CPIO.
4.2. Further, the particulars of the spot verification contain details of third parties involved in 1968 transactions, which are nowhere connected to the applicant. The divulgence of such huge details pertaining to the third parties unrelated to the applicant is prohibited as provisions of the Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The relevant Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, is reproduced below:
File Nos: CIC/CCACH/A/2024/134045 and CIC/CCACH/A/2024/134009 Page 7 of 10 "(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:"
8. Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent replied that investigation in the above matter is not completed and no further action was taken against the said Chit funds Company. However, they still claimed exemption under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that the Appellant, through RTI application dated 08.05.2024, sought copies of FIRs, intimation reports, mahazars, and sworn statements allegedly related to certain survey/raid proceedings conducted by the Income Tax Department at Trichy Uraiyur and Chennai Sengundram.
10. The CPIO, vide reply dated 04.06.2024, informed that information at point Nos. 1 and 2 is not available, while information at point Nos. 3 and 4 was denied under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. During the hearing, the Respondent submitted that investigation has not been completed by Trichy office. It was further submitted that the information sought containing details of numerous third-parties information and are exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
11. The Commission also notes that the Appellant sought information in his capacity as an advocate on behalf of his clients. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) in N. Sarvanan Vs. Chief Information Commissioner, Tamil Nadu SIC (W.P. (MD) No. 4336 of 2017), wherein it was held that "4. The first respondent dismissed the appeal on the premise that the petitioner being a practising advocate cannot seek information relating File Nos: CIC/CCACH/A/2024/134045 and CIC/CCACH/A/2024/134009 Page 8 of 10 to the cases instituted by him on behalf of his client. As a citizen he can personally ask for information but not as an advocate on behalf of his client. The reasoning given by the first respondent cannot be faulted at all. The second appeal filed by the petitioner has been rightly rejected, as otherwise, every practising advocate would invoke the provisions of the R.T.I. Act for getting information on behalf of his client, which situation does not advance the objects of the scheme of the R.T.I. Act. The laudable objects of the R.T.I. Act cannot be used for personal ends and should not become a tool in the hands of the advocate for seeking all kinds of information in order to promote his practise.
5. In such circumstances, the order of the 1st respondent, dismissing the Second Appeal filed by the petitioner does not suffer from infirmity and does not call for interference. Therefore, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and substance and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs."
12. In view of the above observation and discussion, the Commission is of the view that actions of the Respondent are in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Hence, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matters.
The appeals are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कु मार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूच ना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) Sd/-
(S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date File Nos: CIC/CCACH/A/2024/134045 and CIC/CCACH/A/2024/134009 Page 9 of 10 Copy To:
The FAA Office the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Officer (I & CI), ITO - 2, Annexe Building, Aayakar Bhawan, 121, M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600034 File Nos: CIC/CCACH/A/2024/134045 and CIC/CCACH/A/2024/134009 Page 10 of 10 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)