Central Information Commission
B Ramamoorthy vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 22 August, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CCACH/A/2021/111224 +
CIC/CCACH/A/2021/118494 +
CIC/CCACH/A/2021/134513
B Ramamoorthy ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Asst. Comm. of
Income Tax, Central Cir 2(4),
Chennai, RTI Cell, 1st Floor,
New Income Tax Building,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai,
Tamilnadu-600034. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01/07/2022
Date of Decision : 18/08/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note: The above referred Appeal(s) have been clubbed for decision as these are
based on the same RTI Application.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27/11/2019 & 27/11/2019 & 22/05/2021
CPIO replied on : 17/01/2020 & 06/08/2020 & 11/06/2021
First appeal filed on : 13/02/2020 & 13/02/2020 & 23/06/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : 18/03/2020 & 18/03/2020 & 23/07/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10/02/2021 & 19/04/2021 & 27/07/2021
1
CIC/CCACH/A/2021/111224
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.11.2019 seeking the following information:
1. "Pursuant to the income tax raid by the authorities of the Income Tax Department, whether any properties of J.Sekar alias J.Sekar Reddy or his group of concerns had been attached for the purpose of collecting the tax, if so, furnish the details of the properties attached. Kindly furnish the information. What are all the properties of J.Sekar @ Sekar Reddy and his group concern and his family members were not attached? Kindly furnish the information and reasons for not attachment?
2. Pursuant to the Income tax by the authorities of the Income Tax Department, whether any properties of K.B.Sreenivasulu had been attached for the purpose of collecting the tax, if so, furnish the details of the properties attached. Kindly furnish the information. If not furnish the reasons?
3. Whether the property attached by the Income Tax Authorities pertaining to the raid of J.Sekar or Sekar Reddy and his group of concern had been raised or released before completing the assessment and the remittance of the tax, if so, furnish the details of the same and the reason for cancelling the attachment, that too, without paying the tax?
4. Have you received any complaint about the closure of assessment of J.S.R. Infra Developers Private Limited without looking into the entire accounts or without conducting the proper scrutiny by experts of all the bank accounts and the accounts uploaded in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Kindly furnish the said information.
6. As per the book of accounts or search documents or documents produced by J.Sekar alias J.Sekar Reddy at the time of assessment, what is the source of income of J.Sekar alias J.Sekar Reddy in acquiring various properties and have you .verified the undisclosed income by examining the Experts in the Income Tax Department to ascertain the legality of the source or it is money laundering transaction?. Kindly furnish the information.
7. Whether J.Sekar alias J.Sekar Reddy had obtained any contract or tender from the Tamil Nādu State Government for selling the sand? had he obtained any income from the said contract or tender or the source of income is only money laundering of the ministers unaccounted money if so, kindly furnish the information and details.2
8. As per book of accounts or search documents or documents produced by J.Sekar alias J.Sekar Reddy, from whom J.Sekar alias J.Sekar Reddy received unaccounted or suppressed income for the purpose of selling the sand. Kindly furnish the information.
9. On the date of search by the authorities of Income Tax Department, who is in possession of the diary which contains or dealing all the undisclosed income or suppressed income or laundering money by J.Sekar alias J.Sekar Reddy, which has been received by him by way of cash from the Former Minister Vaithialingam, Minister Vijaya Baskar, Minister O. Panneerselvam and Chief Minister Edappadi K.Palanisamy. Kindly furnish the information.
10.What is the stage of investigation and assessment of accounts of J.Sekar alias J.Sekar Reddy and his group of concerns and whether any tax, penalty, interest has been proposed, if so, what is its quantum and had he remitted 'any amount by way of Tax after the search? Kindly furnish the said information.
11.Whether the Income Tax department has issued any CLEAN CHIT TO J.Sekar @ Sekar Reddy ? if so when furnish the details?
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 17.01.2020 stating as follows:-
1. Not referred to the Hon'ble ITSC by this office.
2. This office has not referred any case to Hon'ble ITSC.
3. Does not arise.
4. This office has not filed any benami case.
5. It was not Scrutinized by any Experts. This office has not dealt with any black money in this case.
6. This third party information cannot be divulged as the concerned assessee has objected for disclosure of its details.
7. This assessment in the case of M/s. J.S.R. Infra Developers (B) Ltd has been made as per law.
8. As above in Para 6.
11. No."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.02.2020. FAA's order dated 18.03.2020 held as under:-
"...CPIO, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(4), Chennai is hereby directed to reconsider the RTI application of the appellant dated:3
27.11.2019 and dispose the same as per law within 15 days from the receipt of this order."
In compliance with the FAA's order, CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 06.08.2020 stating as follows:-
"The information sought by the applicant is hereby denied as per Section 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act, as the information sought for will impede the investigation and the prosecution proceedings. Shri J. Sekar vide his letter dated 02.01.2020 has objected from disclosing his personal information to any third party and he has also informed that the appellant wants to score out his personal affairs through the Department by misusing the RTI Act."
CIC/CCACH/A/2021/118494 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.11.2019 seeking the following information:
1. "Who is in possession and custody of the cash amount of Rs.106,98,89,800/-
and 128.495 kg. of gold, which had been seized from J.Sekar alias J.Sekar Reddy on 8.12.2016 and 9.12.2016 by the Income Tax Department? Kindly furnish the information.
2. Out of the cash amount of Rs.106,98,89,800/, seized from J.Sekar alias J.Sekar Reddy, what is the value of the old notes with denomination of Rs.500/- or Rs.I000/- and what is the value of the new notes denomination of Rs.2000/- and its numbers and details? Kindly furnish the information.
3. Out of the 128.495 kg. of gold seized from J.Sekalias J.Sekar Reddy by the Income Tax department, what is the quantity of the Indian Gold and what is the quantity of Foreign Gold and its details, numbers, brand, specification. etc.? Kindly furnish the same.
4. Out of the foreign gold seized from J.Sekar alias J.Sekar Reddy by the Income Tax Department, had J.Sekar alias J.Sekar Reddy. obtained any permission, from, the concerned authority for purchasing the foreign gold if so, Atiaithe details of the permission and its copy.
5. Whether in acquiring the foreign gold by J.Sekar alias J.Sekar, Reddy which was seized by the authorities of the Income Tax Department, had he obtained any permission from Reserve Bank of India or had he violated FEMA Rules and Act, if so, any complaint has been lodged to the said authorities to initiate action under the FEMA Act. Kindly furnish the information and details.
46. As per book of accounts or search report or documents furnished by J.Sekar alias J.Sekar Reddy during the time of search or at the time of investigation, whether the seized cash amount of Rs.106.98.89,800/- and 128.495 kg. of gold belongs to J.Sekar alias J.Sekar Reddy or SRS Mines or any other group of concerns of J.Sekar alias J.Sekar Reddy. Kindly furnish the details and information.
7. What are all the companies of J.Sekar alias J.Sekar Reddy were searched by the Income Tax Authorities on 8.12.2016 and 9.12.2016 and what are all the companies/firms/concern were left out? Kindly furnish the details of the same and the assessment of the respective companies ( seized and non-seized) have been completed or pending. Please furnish the information.
8. Whether any company of J.Sekar alias J.Sekar Reddy in which he is a Partner, Director, Proprietor, Trustee, etc. has been left out on the date of search on 8.12.2016 and 9.12.2016. Kindly furnish the details of the same and also furnish the reason for non search and its assessment details any why co-ordinated assessment was not done?. Kindly furnish the details.
9. Whether J.Sekar alias J.Sekar Reddy or his Partner in , S.R.S. Mines has been taken any step or influence with the help of Director General of Income Tax -- Investigation and its subordinates to release the cash amount Rs.106.98.89.800/- and 128.495 kg. of gold before the assessment or conclusion of the criminal trial in C.C.No.2 of 2017 pending on the file of Principal, Sessions Judge, Chennai, Special Court constituted under Section 43 (1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. What is stage of the assets seized by the Income Tax Department. Kindly furnish the said information.
10. Whether the assessment of J.S.R. Infra Developers Private Limited has been completed, if so, when and what was the total tax amount has been remitted. Kindly furnish the details."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.02.2020. FAA's order dated 18.03.2020 held as under:-
"...CPIO, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(4), Chennai is hereby directed to dispose the application dated: 27.11.2019 of the appellant as per law within 15 days from the receipt of this order."
In compliance with the FAA's order, CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 06.08.2020 stating as follows:-
"The information sought by the applicant is hereby denied as per Section 8 5 (1)(h) of the RTI Act, as the information sought for will impede the investigation and the prosecution proceedings. Shri J. Sekar vide his letter dated 02.01.2020 has objected from disclosing his personal information to any third party and he has also informed that the appellant wants to score out his personal affairs through the Department by misusing the RTI Act."
With respect to the averred replies in both cases, the Appellant filed another First Appeal dated 18.08.2020, based on which the FAA passed an order dated 18.09.2020 stating as under:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/CCACH/A/2021/134513 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.05.2021 seeking the following information:
1. Kindly furnish the details and cause for conducting raid on 21.02.2019, 22.02.2019, 23.02.2019 and 24.02.2019 at 32 places.
2. Kindly furnish the details of 32 places wherein the Income tax department conducted search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Kindly furnish the details which influencing and to arrive conclusion by the Income Tax Department to conduct the raid on 21.2.2019, 22.2.2019, 23.2.2019 and 24.2.2019 at 32 places.6
4. Kindly furnish the copy of Mahazars / List of Documents seized from the house of Brahmanandam Dhanda (PAN No.AESPD2621313), Rama Anjaneyalu (PA's] No. AFQPR7QIID) and from the office of K.C.Veeramani (PAN No.ADKPV35S9J A AAC HV3382C).
5. Kindly furnish the sworn statement recorded by the office of the Income Tax Department on the date of raid from Brahmanandam Dhanda and Rama Aujaneyalu under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act.
6. Kindly furnish the sworn statement recorded by the Income Tax Department doting the course of investigation from Brahmanandam Dhanda and Rama Anjaneyalu under Section 131 (IA) of the Income Tax Act.
7. Kindly famish the statement obtained from J.Sekar Reddy @ J.Sekar in connection with the investment made by him In Jyothirmaye Estates (PAN No.AAKFJ0057A) a Partnership firm owned the properly near Vellore But Stand, which is the cote cause for conducting the raid.
8. Kindly furnish the statement obtained from R.Sathyanarayana in connection with the investment made by him in Jyothirmaye Estates (PAN No. AAKFJ0057A) a Partnership firm owned the property near Vellore But Stand, which is the sole cause for conducting the raid.
9. Kindly furnish the statement obtained from K.C.Veeramani In connection with the investment made by him In Jyothirmaye Estates (PAN No. AAKFJD057A) a Partnership firm owned the property near Vellore Bus Stand, which is the sole cause for conducting the raid.
10. Kindly furnish the details of the cases lodged by the Income Tax Department against J.Sekar @ Sekar Reddy (PAN No.BCDPS4688G) under the Benami Transaction Act.
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 11.06.2021 stating that their office comes under the jurisdiction of DGIT (Inv.) and therefore the information sought cannot be provided as per Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.06.2021. FAA's order dated 23.07.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-7
Appellant: Represented by his advocate through video conference. Respondent: Sri Kumar, Assistant Commissioner & CPIO present through video conference.
CIC/CCACH/A/2021/111224 + CIC/CCACH/A/2021/118494 The advocate of the Appellant stated that the information sought for in the RTI Application relates to the income tax raid and search conducted by the lncome Tax Department at the residence, office and other premises of J.Sekar alias J.Sekar Reddy, M.Prem Kumar, K.Sreenivasulu, SRS Mining and others (business partners) on 08.12.2016 and 09.12.2016 and the authorities have seized the cash of Rs.1 06,98,89, 800/- and 128.495 kg. of gold and also other incriminating materials, etc. He further contended on the same lines as that of the grounds of the Second Appeal, relevant portions of which is reproduced hereunder:
"..The seizure of the gold and cash was widely published by the Income Tax Department and also in Media. On the same date of search, Directorate of Enforcement registered the case in F.No.ECIR/CEZ0/19/2016 against J.Sekar Reddy alias J.Sekar and also against his partner under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Thereafter the Director of Enforcement has also filed charge sheet / final report in C.C.No.2 of 2017 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Now the said J.Sekar Reddy @ J.Sekar with the connivance of the officials of the income tax department, trying to take the custody of the entire cash amount and gold as well, that too, during the pendency of the above criminal case which is the important evidence to prove the charge and also to convict him in the court of law. Neither the income tax department nor the Director of Enforcement refused to disclose the information about the seizure of cash and gold. Hence the appellant forced to ask the information under the Right to Information Act.
xxx
1. The Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) had conducted search as per Section 132 of the Income Tax Act at the residence, office premises of J.Sekar @ J.Sekar Reddy and seized various incriminating materials which disclosed the commission of offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and Prevention of Corruption Act and thereafter furnished information to the CBI and Directorate of Enforcement. The CBI and Directorate of Enforcement who have registered the case based on the information and seizure materials of the 8 Income Tax Department viz. Imported Gold Biscuits, 2000 Rupees rupee notes, etc. Thereafter the Income Tax Department has not come forward to furnish any information regarding the serial number of imported gold biscuits, serial number of 2000 rupees notes seized from J.Sekar @ J.Sekar Reddy and others either to the CBI or to the Directorate of Enforcement for the purpose of further investigation.
Due to miserable failure on the part of the Income Tax Department to furnish the information, the CBI could not be able to conduct proper investigation and in such a way, the whole Income Tax Department blindly supporting J.Sekar @ J.Sekar Reddy for the purpose of getting acquittal or discharge from the criminal offence. The dishonest intention of the Officers of the Income Tax Department that at any circumstances they shall not ready to disclose the details of the seizure materials and its serial numbers, for the reasons best known to them. In view of the above, the Officers of the Income Tax Department, the present application for seeking information has been rejected without any basis or justifiable reasons and it has to be revisited by the Appellate Authority and secure the Central Exchequer amount
2. The details of the information with respect to the serial number of the imported gold and serial numbers of 2000 rupees seized by the Income Tax Department has been sought for from the Directorate of Enforcement which was also refused on the ground of pending investigation...
3 The Central Public Information Officer has not even considered the RTI Application dated 27.11.2019 have given irrelevant answer in order to help J.Sekar Reddy alias J.Sekar, and passed the incorrect order dated 17.1.2020. In the said order, there is no reference with respect to the alleged letter said to have been issued by J.Sekar Reddy @ J.Sekar on 3.1.2020 and the grounds under Section 8(1)(h) of the R.T.I. Act. As against which, the appellant preferred an appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority which was disposed by directing the Public Information Officer to reconsider the RTI application dated 27.11.2019 and disposed the same as per law within 15 days from the receipt of the order dated 18.3.2020. Despite the order of the Appellate Authority, the Public Information Officer has shown scan respect and completely disregarded the order of the Appellate authority...."
CIC/CCACH/A/2021/134513 Here also, the following grounds of the Second Appeal were reiterated as under:
9"The Director General of lncome Tax lnvestigation Chennai conducted search at 32 places on 21.2.2019, 22.2.2019, 23.2.2019 and 24.2.2019 at the residence of BrahmanandamDhanda, Rama Anjaneyalu, Ramamoorthy and others including the residence of the Appellant. At the time of raid, the Officers of the Income Tax Department obtained the sworn statement under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act and during the course of the investigation, the sworn statement was obtained from all of them under Section 131 (1A) of the Income Tax Act. The office of the Income Tax Department also issued letter for co- ordinated investigation and assessment in respect of the raid conducted at 32 places. All the persons who involved in the raid have jointly accepted for the co- ordinated investigation and assessment. The investigation has been completed and proceedings pending for assessment before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigation) Central Circle 2(4) Chennai."
In furtherance of the above submissions, the Rep. of the Appellant stated that the invocation of Section 24 of the RTI Act is unwarranted in the matter when it is a case of clear corruption.
Further, upon a query from the Commission, the Rep. of the Appellant clarified that the Appellant is one of the partners of J Sekar in other business transactions but his premises was also raided one year later and is being embroiled into the matter.
The CPIO submitted in all the three cases that the investigation is not completed as one of the business partners has approached the High Court under writ jurisdiction against the said seizure, and hearing is pending in the case therefore the matter cannot be deemed as complete.
Decision:
The Commission heard the advocate of the Appellant at length and based on the information sought for in the RTI Application(s) under reference, it is noted at the outset that all of it relates to third parties. While the Appellant may have a case against the Income Tax Department for raiding his property as a part of the investigation under reference, the fact remains that all of the information sought for pertains to the records related to the third parties, disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the said exemption is reproduced as under:10
8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen:
(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:.."
In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."11
Similarly, it is also pertinent to note that largely the information sought for in the RTI Applications is in the form of seeking answers to speculative queries that do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Moreover, disclosure of the statements of the third parties tendered or recorded during the course of the investigation will also be hit by the exemption of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act which provides as under:12
(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;
Although, the CPIO grossly failed to discharge the onus of justifying the denial of the information as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act which states as under:
(5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.
Nonetheless, based on the strength of the material on record, the Commission cannot lose sight of the plausible applicability of the appropriate exemption clauses of the RTI Act and accordingly orders for no relief in the matter.
The CPIO is warned against tending feeble submissions before the Commission and is also directed to acquaint himself well with the provisions of the RTI Act before representing any case in the future.
The appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 13