Central Information Commission
Nitai Chandra Halder vs Director General Of Income Tax (Inv.) ... on 3 July, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DGIIB/A/2023/117675
Nitai Chandra Halder .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
O/o Director of Income
Tax, Centralized Processing
Centre, 48/1, 48/2, Prestige
Alpha, Beratena Agrahara, Electronic City
(Post), Hosur Road, Bengaluru - 560500 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.06.2024
Date of Decision : 02.07.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.09.2022
CPIO replied on : 25.10.2022
First appeal filed on : 14.11.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 06.12.2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.04.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.09.2022 seeking the following information:
"1 Kindly furnish the amount of refund for e-filing No.714107810101120 did 10.11.2020 for PAN AAxxH9xx8A.
2 Kindly furnish the details when the amount was refunded and in which account.
3. Kindly furnish the reason why the amount was not credited till date.
Page 1 of 44. Kindly provide the information when the amount would be credited."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 25.10.2022 stating as under:
"Reply to Query Nos 1 to 4 It is observed that processing of the return filed by the applicant on 10.11.2020 for A. Y. 2020-21 has been completed on 25.11.2021. The refund determined thereon of Rs 47,570/- (including interest under Section 244A) has been adjusted against outstanding demand of A.Y 2010-11 [original demand of Rs. 34.090/- plus interest under Section 220(2) of Rs. 13,480/-). Prior to making this adjustment, CPC had sent notice under Section 245 to the applicant, to which there was no response. Hence, CPC proceeded in making the adjustment on 20.10.2022 It is informed that the demand of A.Y. 2010-11 has been raised by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). Therefore, the applicant may approach the JAO, i.e. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Malda, to seek details of basis of creation of this demand/ rectification, etc, if any, in this regard."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.11.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 06.12.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Ms. Sunita Premkumar, ITO-cum-CPIO, attended the hearing through VC.
The Appellant did not participate in the hearing despite being served the hearing notice in advance.
The Respondent submitted that an adequate reply based on available records has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 25.10.2022. She further advised the Appellant to approach the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), Income-tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Malda, to seek the details of basis of creation of this demand for the AY 2010-11 and for rectification of the same, if any, as the return of income was filed and processed by the JAO An adjournment request has been received from Ms. Neela Halder, daughter of the Appellant vide letter nil, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:Page 2 of 4
"In response to your letter no CIC/DGIIB/A/2023/117675 DTD 7/06/2024 mentioned above it is intimated that my father Mr Nitai Chandra Halder is presently residing out of India with his son due to old age and physical illness. So it is not possible for him to attend the hearing for appeal/complain on the scheduled date ie 24/06/2024. So he requested to reschedule the hearing session after 15/09/2024 so that he is able to present himself for the said hearing. This is for your information and n/a."
A written submission has been received from Ms. Sunita Premkumar, ITO-cum- CPIO, vide letter dated 19.06.2024, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
"Kindly refer to the above.
2. The following is submitted for the kind consideration of the Hon'ble CIC: The appellant, Sri Nitai Chandra Halder, had filed an online application dated 21.09.2022 under the RTI Act, which was received in this office on transfer from the Income tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Malda on 01.10.2022.In the application, the appellant had sought the following information:
1. Amount of refund for the return of income filed on 10.11.2020 for the AY 2020-21.
2. Details of amount of refund issued and the bank account to which refund was issued.
3. Reasons for not crediting the refund amount.
4. Information when the amount would be credited.
2.1. The CPIO vide order under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act dated 25.10.2022 provided the information sought for by the appellant. It was informed to him that the return of income filed by him for the AY 2020-21 had been processed on 25.11.2021 determining a refund of Rs.47,570/- (including interest u/s.244A of the Income tax Act). It was further informed that the refund so determined had been adjusted towards the outstanding demand of Rs.34,090/- and interest u/s.220(2) of the Income tax Act of Rs.13,480/- for the AY 2010-11, in the absence of a response from the appellant to the notice issued u/s.245 of the Act. Since the demand for the AY 2010-11 was raised by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), the appellant was requested to approach the Income tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Malda, for further information and rectification of the demand.
2.2. In appeal, the First Appellate Authority (FAA)& Additional Director of Income Tax, Unit-4, CPC, Bengaluru vide order dated 06.12.2022, dismissed the appeal stating that the grounds of appeal are devoid of merits as the appellant had not substantiated these grounds with supporting reasons/evidences and that the appellant is found to have raised new set of questions which were not raised in the original RTI application. It was further mentioned that the CPIO had provided the information sought for by the appellant for the AY 2020-21 and had suggested the appellant to contact the JAO for details of the outstanding demand and for rectification, if any, for the AY 2010-11.
3. In the light of the above discussions, the following submissions are respectfully made before the Hon'ble CIC.
Page 3 of 43.1. It is submitted that the information sought for by the appellant in the RTI application in respect of his return of income for the AY 2020-21 and the amount of refund determined on processing of the return of income was provided to him. The appellant was also informed of the adjustment made from the said refund towards the outstanding demand for the AY 2010-11 raised by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
3.2 It is further submitted that an intimation for the proposed adjustment of refund against the outstanding demand was issued to the appellant on 25.11.2021 to the email id [email protected]. Since the appellant failed to respond to the said notice, the refund so determined was adjusted towards the outstanding demand of AY 2010-11.
3.3 It is pertinent to submit here that the appellant was advised to approach the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), Income-tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Malda, to seek the details of basis of creation of this demand for the AY 2010-11 and for rectification of the same, if any, as the return of income was filed and processed by the JAO. A copy of the CPIO's reply was also marked to the JAO for information. The appellant ought to have approached the JAO for resolution of his grievance and for rectification of demand for the AY 2010-11."
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records, observes that an adequate reply based on available records has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 25.10.2022 and the Commission upholds the same. Further the adjournment request given by the daughter of the Appellant is denied on the ground that neither it was signed by the Appellant himself nor the Appellant has authorised his daughter to make such request before the bench or to represent her in the hearing. No intervention of the Commission is required in the instant case.
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 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)