Central Information Commission
Nitish Singla vs Director General Of Income Tax (Inv.) ... on 13 November, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DGITD/A/2024/114894
Nitish Singla .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Director General
of Income Tax (Inv.) New
Delhi, Second Floor, C Block,
Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, New
Delhi - 110002 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10.11.2025
Date of Decision : 12.11.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.02.2024
CPIO replied on : 13.02.2024
First appeal filed on : 09.03.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 21.03.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10.05.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.02.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"a. Annexure 1 Tax Evasion Petition dated 06.01.2024 delivered on 09.01.2024 through speed post vide no. EP484951162IN dated 06.01.2024.Page 1 of 12
b. Annexure 2 Copy of Receipt of the Speed Post vide no. EP484951162IN dated 06.01.2024.
c. Annexure 3 Copy of Delivery Report of the speed post vide no. EP484951162IN dated 06.01.2024.
RTI Application for information Under Section 6(1) of RTI Act, 2005 with reference to the status and broad outcome of the Tax Evasion Petition sent through speed post dated 06.01.2024 in the office of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, Aaykar Bhawan, Leela Bhawan, Patiala-147001 (Attached as Annexure-A) against Mr. Ravinder Kumar Jindal, Mrs. Nisha Rani, Mrs Anjali Jindal, Mr. Prince Jindal, Permanent r/o 195, Indira Colony, Patiala Gate, Nabha, Kotwali Nabha, Patiala, Punjab. through speed post vide no. EP484951202IN dated 06.01.2024 delivered dated 08.01.2024. I humbly request you to furnish me the following information through section 6 & 7 of the RTI Act 2005 and the finding of various CIC and Delhi High Court Judgments.
Please provide the certified copies of the following details regarding Tax Evasion Petition dated 06.01.2024 in the office of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, Aaykar Bhawan, Leela Bhawan, Patiala-147001 (Attached as Annexure-A) against Mr. Ravinder Kumar Jindal, Mrs. Nisha Rani, Mrs Anjali Jindal, Mr. Prince Jindal, Permanent r/o 195, Indira Colony, Patiala Gate, Nabha, Kotwali Nabha, Patiala, Punjab through speed post vide no. EP484951202IN dated 06.01.2024 delivered dated 08.01.2024. I humbly request you to furnish me the following information through section 6 & 7 of the RTI Act 2005 and the finding of various CIC and Delhi High Court Judgments.
My wife, Mrs. Anjali Jindal d/o Mr. Ravinder Kumar Jindal and my Father- in-law Mr. Ravinder Kumar Jindal has filed fraudulent cases of dowry harassment and Domestic Violence against the applicant and under the threat of Arrest and false litigations. Both have made extensive and unsubstantiated claims regarding significant financial transactions and expenditures carried out by them and family members during the period of our marriage, spanning from 2018 to 2024. These claims are documented in various legal documents, including formal complaints, statements, Income Tax Returns, 26AS Form, bank statements, and records of property purchases, all of which have been submitted to the court and Police Authority. The cash flow involves a lot of suspicious transactions which needs to be scrutinize under INCOME TAX ACT 1961
1. Please provide the certified copy of Action Taken Report on the TAX Evasion Petition filed by the applicant against Mr. Ravinder Kumar Jindal, Page 2 of 12 Mrs. Nisha Rani, Mrs Anjali Jindal, Mr. Prince Jindal, Permanent r/o 195, Indira Colony, Patiala Gate, Nabha, Kotwali Nabha, Patiala, Punjab through speed post vide no. EP484951202IN dated 06.01.2024 delivered dated 08.01.2024.
2. Please provide the certified information as TRUE/FALSE and the broader outcome of the point no. 2 of TEP dated 06.01.2024 whether my Father In Law Mr. Ravinder Kumar Jindal and my mother-n-law Mrs. Nisha Rani has disclosed the details in the financial year 2018-19 about the source of income/expenditure on spending the claimed expenditure for the Ring Ceremony and Marriage Expenses, as affirmed by both my wife and her father, amounts to approximately 12500000/- (One Crore Twenty-Five lakhs) on dated 13.04.2018 and 13.09.2018/14.09.2018 respectively. The relevant copy of her Domestic Violence Complaint dated 05.05.2023 and her Father FIR dated 30.12.2022 are submitted by the applicant along with said TEP application.
3. Please provide the certified information as TRUE/FALSE and the broader outcome of Point no. 3 of TEP dated 06.01.2024 whether my Father In Law Mr. Ravinder Kumar Jindal and my mother-n-law Mrs. Nisha Rani has disclosed the details in the financial year 2018-19 about the source of income/expenditure on spending on the 13th of April 2018, ring ceremony These claimed expenditures include an expenditure of Rs. 9 lakhs on booking a hotel, which is allegedly owned by her parental uncle, Mr. Om Parkash Jindal, who is the elder brother of her father, Mr. Ravinder Kumar Jindal, and the son of her father's brother, Vikas Jindal. Additionally, she has claimed that cash gifts amounting to Rs. 5 lakhs were given during the ring ceremony, along with an extra sum of Rs. 155,000 distributed to relatives, with each payment amounting to Rs. 3,100. The relevant copy of her DV Complaint and statement to CDPO under her DV Case are submitted by the applicant along with said TEP application.
4. Please provide the certified information as TRUE/FALSE and the broader outcome of the point no. 4 (a) to (e) of TEP dated 06.01.2024 whether my Father in Law Mr. Ravinder Kumar Jindal, mother in law Mrs. Nisha Rani and my wife Mrs. Anjali Jindal has disclosed the sources of income in the financial year 2018-19 in which they had been claimed that on 14th of September 2018, day of marriage expenditures associated with our wedding ceremony that is done out of the earning and accumulation her father Mr. Ravinder Kumar Jindal. The relevant copy of Domestic Violence Complaint dated 05.05.2023, and the FIR u/s Page 3 of 12 498a/406 IPC dated 30.12.2022 are submitted along with the said TEP application.
5. Please provide the certified information as TRUE/FALSE and the broader outcome of the point no. 5 of TEP dated 06.01.2024 whether my Father in Law Mr. Ravinder Kumar Jindal, has disclosed the sources of income in the financial year 2019-20 under the Income Tax Act 1961 where my wife Mrs. Anjali Jindal is claiming in the D.V. Complaint dated 05.05.2023 that out of the earning and accumulation my Father-in-law Mr. Ravinder Kumar Jindal, on May 14, 2020, following the birth of our child, various gifts and valuable items were claimed to have been given, including a gold bracelet weighing 11 grams, a 2-tola gold set for my mother. Rs. 51,000/- for my father, a fully automatic washing machine, valuable clothing, and Rs. 51,000/- each for my two sisters and their spouses L.e. Rs.2,04000/-(Two Lakh Four Thousand).
6. Please provide the certified information as TRUE/FALSE and the broader outcome of the point no. 6 of TEP dated 06.01.2024 whether my Father in Law Mr. Ravinder Kumar Jindal, has disclosed the sources of income in the financial year 2021-2022 under the Income Tax Act 1961 where my wife Mrs. Anjali Jindal is claiming in the her Domestic Violence complaint and accompanying statement, my wife also claimed that during her brother's wedding, her father gifted the following items: one gold chain weighing 1.1/2 Tolas to me and Rs. 51,000/- cach to my husband's parents i.e. Rs. 1,02,000/-.
7. Please provide the certified information as TRUE/FALSE and the broader outcome of the point no. 7 of TEP dated 06.01.2024 whether my Father in Law Mr. Ravinder Kumar Jindal, has disclosed the sources of income under Income Tax Act 1961 for the buying and selling of properties on a large scale which involves huge black money and revealed from his numerous cash deposits into my wife's Axis Bank account vide A/c no. 918030067815750 on multiple occasions, including an instance where he deposited an amount exceeding 1 crore, and on two separate occasions, he deposited a substantial sum totaling Rs. Twenty Six lakhs which is evident from her 26AS Form.
Relevant Copy of 26AS form for A.Y. 2021-22 are submitted along with the said TEP application.
8. Please provide the certified information regarding the broader outcome of the point no. 8 and 10 of TEP dated 06.01.2024 whether The Tax authority had scrutinized all the bank accounts of Mr. Ravinder Page 4 of 12 Kumar Jindal Father-in law, Mrs. Anjali Jindal, Mrs. Nisha Jindal and Prince Jindal to unfold the huge illegal transactions for tax evasion purpose.
9. Please provide the certified information regarding the broader outcome of the point no. 9 of TEP dated 06.01.2024 whether Mr. Ravinder Kumar Jindal has disclosed the source of income for the purchase of the 400 sq, yard plot gifted to my wife on 7th October 2019, which is claimed in the Domestic Violence Case and FIR submitted by my wife and father-in-law, valued at approximately Rs. 50 lakhs. And the sale of the property to Ms. Nidhi Thapper wife of Vinod Chopra, son of Dharamvir Chopra, residing in Nabha by my wife Mrs. Anjali Jindal. The relevant copy of sale deed of both the transactions are submitted by the applicant along with the TEP application.
10. Please provide certified information regarding the broader outcome of point no. 12 of the TEP application dated 06.01.2024 that Mr. Ravinder Kumar Jindal, Mrs. Nisha Rani, Mrs. Anjali Jindal, Mr. Prince Jindal (as claimed) had over huge crores in the financial vear 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, till 2022-23.
11. That the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 wherein information on 03 points was sought regarding (i) Fate of Petitioner's complaint (tax evasion petition) dated 24.09.2003 (ii) What is the other source of income of petitioner's wife Smt. Saroj Nimal than from teaching as a primary teacher in a private school' iii) What action the Department had taken against Smt. Saroj Nimal after issuing a notice u/s 131 of the Income 'tax Act, 1961, pursuant to the said Tax Evasion Petition. The Hon'ble High Court after careful examination of the matter had held as under:
"14. In the present case, the orders of the three respondents do not reflect any reasons, why the investigation process would be hampered. The direction of the CIC shows is that the information needs to be released only after the investigation and recovery in complete. Facially, the order supports the petitioner's contention that the claim for exemption made by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are untenable. Section 8(1)(j) relates only to investigation and prosecution and not to recovery. Recovery in tax matters, in the usual circumstances is a time consuming affair, and to withhold information till that eventuality, after the entire proceedings, despite the ruling that investigations are not hampered by information disclosure, is illogical. The petitioner's grouse against Page 5 of 12 the condition imposed by the CIC is all the more valid since he claims it to be of immense relevance, to defend himself in criminal proceedings. The second and third respondents have not purported to be aggrieved by the order of CIC as far as it directs disclosure of materials, nor have they sought for its review on the ground that the CIC was misled and its reasoning flawed. Therefore, it is too late for them to contend that the impugned order contains an erroneous appreciation of facts. The materials available with them and forming the basis of notice under the Income Tax act is what has to be disclosed to the petitioner, Le the Information seeker.
15. As to the issue of whether the investigation has been complete or not. I think that the authorities have not applied their mind about the nature of information sought. As is submitted by the Petitioner, he merely seeks access to the preliminary reports investigation pursuant to which notices under Sections 131, 143(2), 148 of the Income Tax have been issued and not as to the outcome of the investigation and reassessment carried on by the Assessing Officer. As held in the preceding part of the judgment, without a disclosure as to how the investigation process would be hampered by sharing the materials collected till the notices were issued to the assesse, the respondents could not have rejected the request for granting information. The CIC, even after overruling the objection, should not have imposed the condition that information could be disclosed only after recovery was made.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion the order of the CIC dated 8th May 2006 In so far as it withholds information until tax recovery orders are made, is set aside. The second and third respondents are directed to release the information sought, on the baris of the materials available and collected with them, within two weeks"
12. That the Central Information Commission in Second Appeal No. CIC/DGITL/A/2019/653097, Neeraj Kumar Garg vs Director General Of Income Tax (Inv.) on 31 May, 2021 held that:
"7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant was aggrieved that information has been wrongly denied to him by the respondent on his RTI application. The Commission observed that the respondent has wrongly invoked Section 11 of Page 6 of 12 the RTI Act. The Commission observes that the information sought by the appellant is personal information of third party which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(1) of the RTI Act, as the investigation details related to third party need not to be disclosed under the RTI Act. The Commission is of the view that the broad outcome of the Tax Evasion Petition/or status of the Tax Evasion Petition should be informed to the appellant under the RTI Act.
9. In view of the above ratios, the Commission directs the respondent to inform to the appellant the current states of his Tax Evasion Petition and/or if the said TEP has already been disposed of then, broad outcome of the Tax Evasion Petition should be informed to the appellant as per his RTI application, within a period of 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order"
13. This information is very important for the Applicant as he is facing a threat of arrest and needs the information to prove his innocence. Not granting such information clearly leads to violation of the fundamental right of the Complainant as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution. If The Complainant has more than one way of seeking remedy he has the freedom to opt for the way which is more convenient for him. Even, Honourable Information Commissioner Shri Sailesh Gandhi of CIC bearing his Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2009/000702/4128 dated 14-07-2009 where he defines the concept of privacy, which may act as a guidance for every public information officer "This information is very important for the Complainant as he is facing a threat of arrest and needs the information to prove his innocence. Not granting such information clearly leads to violation of the fundamental right of the Complainant as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution. If The Complainant has more than one way of seeking remedy he has the freedom to opt for the way which is more convenient for him. No claim has been made by the PIO of any exemption under the RTI Act to deny the information. If a Public Authority has a procedure of disclosing certain information which can also be accessed by a Citizen using the Right to Information Act, it is the Citizen's prerogative to decide which route he wishes to take. The existence of another method of accessing information cannot be a justification to deny the Citizen his freedom to exercise his fundamental right codified under the Right to Information Act. If the Parliament wanted to restrict this right, it would have been stated expressly in the Act. Nobody else Page 7 of 12 has the right to constrain or limit the rights of the Sovereign Citizen. There is no provision in the Right to Information Act which restrains the Citizen's right to use it if another route to access information has been offered. It is a Citizen's right to use the most convenient and efficacious means available to him."
14. The Applicant has a right to know what action has been taken by the authority on his Tax Evasion Petition dated 06.01.2024 and whether the information provided by him has been found to be false or true. The Applicant rely on the decision of Honourable Central Information Commissioner Prof. M.Μ. Ansari Wide Decision No.174/AC(A)/2006 in same kind of TEP/RTI matter where CIC directed the CPIO to furnish Action Taken Report on the TEP filed by the applicant.
15. The Commission in the decision of Dushyant Singh Tanwar vs Director General Of Income Tax on 10 April, 2019:
"In the light of the facts available on record and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter at this stage. However, the broad outcome of the investigation should be disclosed to the Appellant as soon as the investigation is completed."
16. The Commission in the decision dated 18/06/2013 (File No. CIC/RM/A/2012/000926 Sh. Ved Prakash Doda v/s ITO) wherein it was held as under:
"6. It has been the stand of the Commission that in respect of a tax evasion petition, once the investigation is completed, the appellant should be informed the broad results of the investigation, without disclosing any details. The appellant has a right to know as to whether the information provided by him was found to be true or false."
17. Further relying on the decision of Honorable Central Information Commissioner Shri Deepak Sandhu Wide Appeal case No. CIC/DS/A/2010/001779 in same kind of TEP/RTI matter:
"After hearing both parties Commission accepts that undoubtedly the respondent is listed in second schedule of the RTI Act which read with section 24 keeps the organization out of the purview of the RTI Act. However in the Commission's view the applicant can be provided with information regarding whether the information Page 8 of 12 provided by him to the respondent in his TEP was found to be true, partly true or false. Therefore without providing any other information to the appellant regarding the outcome of any action taken by the respondent on the TEP submitted by the appellant, information can provided to the appellant limited only to whether through his TEP he had furnished information that was found to be true, partly true or false.
4. Information as above to be furnished within two weeks of receipt of the order."
18. The Commission in the decision of Shri Virag R. Dhulia v. Income Tax Department, Kolkata in CIC/LS/A/2009/001179 dated 18.02.2010 had held as under:
"It is to be noted that investigation into a TEP cannot be allowed to go on ad-infinitum and that it should be concluded in a reasonable time frame whereafter the broad outcome thereof needs to be communicated to the appellant i.e. whether the allegations made in the TEP are fully true, partially true or untrue. No further information needs to be disclosed at this stage."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13.02.2024 stating as under:
"सूचना का अधिकार आिानयम, 2005 की िारा 7 के तहत आदे श सूचना का अधिकार अधिननयम, 2005 के अंतर्गत सूचना प्राप्त करने के लिए श्री ननतीश लसंर्िा द्वारा दाखिि आर.टी.आई आवेदन, इस कायागिय में ददनांक 12.02.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ।
2. केन्द्र सरकार ने सूचना का अधिकार अधिननयम, 2005 (2005 का 22) की िारा 24 की उप-िारा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तत का प्रयोर् करते हुए, ददनांक 27.03.2008 को जारी अधिसूचना के माध्यम से, आयकर महाननदे शािय (अन्द्वेषण) को एक िुफ़िया एवं सुरक्षा संर्ठन होने के कारण, आर.टी.आई अधिननयम, 2005 की दस ू री अनुसूची में रिा है , क्जसे सूचना का अधिकार अधिननयम, 2005 की बाध्यता से छूट प्राप्त है । तद्नुसार, यह कायागिय, अधिननयम की िारा 24(1) के परं तुक के प्राविान के अिीन रहते हुए, सूचना का अधिकार अधिननयम, 2005 की प्रयोज्यता से छूट प्राप्त है ।
3. इसके अिावा माननीय उच्च न्द्यायािय, ददल्िी ने W.P. (C) 6030/2013 & CM APPL. 13275/2013 के मामिे में, ददनांक 26.02.2016 को जारी अपने आदे श के तहत, सीबीडीटी द्वारा दायर ररट याधचका को स्वीकार फकया, क्जसमें याधचकाकताग द्वारा Page 9 of 12 माननीय उच्च न्द्यायािय से, आरटीआई अधिननयम 2005 के तहत छूट प्राप्त संर्ठन होने के मामिे में अपना ननणगय दे ने का अनुरोि फकया र्या था।"
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.03.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 21.03.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. A written submission dated 17.10.2025 filed by Ms. Himani Singla, ADIT (Invt.)/CPIO, O/O DGIT (Investigation), Civic Centre, Delhi is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"...2. The applicant filed a Ran RTIplication dated 07.02.2024 which was received in this office on 12.02.2024 to know about the status of his Tax Evasion Petition. The CPIO has passed an order under section 7 of the RTI Act, 2005 dated 12.02.2024 denying supply of information in view of the exemption under section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. Subsequently, the applicant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority vide appeal dated 09.03.2024 which was received on 11.03.2024 and requested the First Appellate Authority to provide the requisite information as per the RTI Act, 2005.The First Appellate Authority passed an order under section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 vide order dated 21.03.2024 and upheld the order of the CPIO.
4. Now the applicant has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner and requesting to provide the requisite information as desired.
5. That the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by Sub- Section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005) has by notification dated 27.03.2008, placed the office of the DGIT (Inv.) in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005, as an intelligence and security organization excluded from the purview of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, it is submitted that this office is exempt from the operation of the RTI Act subject to the provisions of proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 200S.
6. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 26.02.2016 in the WP(C) 6030/2013 & CM APPL. 13275/2013 has allowed the writ petition filed by the CBDT wherein the Hon'ble High Court was requested to give Page 10 of 12 decision in the matter of petitioner being an exempted organization under RTI Act, 2005."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Shri Yatin Kumar, Office Superintendent-cum-CPIO present in person.
6. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 10.05.2024 is available on record. The Appellant confirms service.
7. The Appellant while reiterating the contents of RTI application stated that action taken report on his Tax Evasion Petition has not been informed to him till date. Further, the CPIO has wrongly denied the information by invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act. He prayed the Commission to direct the Respondent to provide the desired information.
8. The Respondent submitted that the offline subject TEP filed by the Appellant pertains to office of DGIT (Investigation), Chandigarh, therefore, his TEP has been forwarded to the concerned office for necessary action. As regards RTI application is concerned, it was informed to the Appellant that Respondent Public Authority is an exempt organization from the operation of RTI Act as per Section 24 (1) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
9. The Commission, after adverting to facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and upon a perusal of records finds no scope of any relief and agrees with the reply of CPIO that the Respondent Public Authority is an exempt organization as per Second Schedule of Section 24 of the RTI Act. Further, the material on record does not suggest any allegation of corruption or human rights violation in the matter, for which reason, the Commission finds no reason to invoke the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act to allow the disclosure of information, if any. Moreover, the Respondent has orally Page 11 of 12 informed the broad outcome of TEP. For the sake of clarity, the relevant provision of Section 24(1) 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 organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations 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:..."
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the Director General of Income Tax (Inv.) New Delhi, Third Floor, C Block, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, New Delhi - 110002 Page 12 of 12 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)