Central Information Commission

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Central Information Commission"

Roland Norman
5 years ago
Views:

1 Central Information Commission Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi Telefax: & website cic.gov.in Appellant /Complainant : Shri Rajesh Wadhwa, New Delhi Public Authority : Income Tax Department, New Delhi (Sh. Ram Meena, ITO, W 46(1) & Sh. Dalip Singh, ITO Ward 46(4) Date of Hearing : 19 March 2012 Date of Decision : 19 March 2012 Facts: 1. Shri Rajesh Wadhawa submitted three identical RTI applications before CPIO/income tax officer, Ward 44 (3), CPIO/income tax officer, Ward 46 (1) and CPIO/income tax officer, Ward 46 (4), New Delhi seeking information pertaining to this the income tax returns of Shri Narayan Das Gupta and his daughters MS Puja Wadhawa and Tanu Shangle enclosed herewith as Annexure A After taking action under the provisions of section 11 of the RTI Act, the CPIO, ITO,Ward 44(3) provided part information to the appellant vide his order of 12 July Appellant preferred appeal dated 15 July 2011 before the first appellate authority who directed CPIO to provide information as sought under point 3 for the years and However information pertaining to the status of the enquiry on the TEP submitted by the appellant was denied to him on the grounds that disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation. 2.2 Appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.

2 The CPIO, ITO Ward 46(1) denied disclosure of information as sought in respect of Ms Pooja Wadhawa under the provisions of section 8 (1)(j) of the Act. 3.1 The appellant preferred appeal dated 9 July 2011 before the first appellate authority who disposed of the matter after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant, vide his order dated for August 2011 by upholding the order of the CPIO. 3.2 Being aggrieved and not being satisfied by the above orders, appellant moved the Commission in second appeal On receiving the RTI application dated 26 May 2011, the CPIO, vide his order of 4 July 2011 furnished part information to the appellant Appellant preferred appeal dated 12 August 2011 before the first appellate authority who did not adjudicate in the matter. 4.2 Appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission. 7. Matter was heard today. 8. The CPIO in case numbers 0555 and 0554 appeared before the Commission today in response to our notice along with the appellant. The CPIO in case number 3539 did not appear. The council who appeared on behalf of the CPIO/income tax officer, Ward 44 (3), New Delhi withdrew just prior to the hearing stating that CPIO was required to brief him before the commencement of the hearing but had reneged at the last moment. Therefore the respondent remained unrepresented in this case. 9. Appellant stated that he had sought the information from the respective ITOs on account of the fact that the state had instituted criminal dowry case against him under sections 498 A, 406 and 34 on account of FIR no. 41/2011 dated 30 March 2011 filed by his father in law Shri Gupta and his wife Ms Pooja Wadhawa. Stated that he wished to defend himself in the criminal case on the basis of the information received from the Department. Decision notice

3 10. Commission has heard the parties and also perused the facts on record. On the basis of the ratio laid out in Commission s order no. CIC/LS/A/2010/ DS in the case of Shri Manoj Kumar Saini, Commission directs as follows: 3539: in pursuance of the orders of the first appellate authority, the CPIO has already informed the appellant that Shri Narayan Das Gupta has not filed income tax returns for the years and Appellant has stated that his marriage was held on 26 May 2010 therefore in case Shri Gupta has now filed his ITRs for the above period, then the net taxable income for that period will be provided to the appellant within three weeks of receipt of the order. Also in our view, it is not unreasonable on the part of any person who has submitted TEP before the Department to expect to be informed of the status of the ongoing enquiry based on his TEP. Appellant has stated that he had submitted TEP over one year ago. In the interest of transparency and good governance, it is expected that the Department will not unduly delay the process of enquiry. Therefore it is directed that after concluding the enquiry as expeditiously as possible, the Department will provide information to the appellant about the outcome regarding whether the facts provided by him in his TEP were found to be true/partially true/false. The Commission is pained to comment on the attitude of the CPIO who has failed to appear in response to the notice of the Commission and has also most callously chosen not to brief Counsellor of the Department who has had to withdraw from the case at the last moment. Commission forwards a copy of this order the immediate superior of the CPIO, CIT :The CPIO/Income Tax Officer, ward 46 (1) New Delhi is directed to provide the net taxable income of the assessee namely Ms Pooja Wadhwa for the years and to the appellant for the above mentioned reasons. The outcome of the enquiry based on the TEP made by the appellant will also be furnished to him restricted to whether the facts given in the TEP by the appellant were found to be true/partially true/false. Information to be provided within two weeks of receipt of the order. 0554: information sought by the appellant from the CPIO/income tax officer Ward 46 (4), New Delhi pertains to the sister of his wife. The Commission

4 notes that part information has already been provided to the appellant and part information has been denied on the grounds that it pertains to third party. The Commission accepts the ruling of the CPIO vide his order dated 4 July 2011 as the ratio for disclosing information pertaining to the net taxable income of the father in law and wife of the appellant on account of the criminal case instituted against the appellant by the state based on the F I R of the above mentioned persons cannot be stretched beyond reasonable limits to cover other relatives. Authenticated true copy: (Smt. Deepak Sandhu) Information Commissioner (DS) (T. K. Mohapatra) Dy. Secretary & Dy. Registrar Tel. No Copy to: 1. Shri Rajesh Wadhwa C/o Rakesh Wadhwa (Brother) D 12, Mukhram Garden Tilak Nagar, New Delhi The CPIO Income Tax Officer Ward No. 44(3), Room No.522, 5 th Floor Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Place New Delhi

5 3. The Appellate Authority Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Range 44, Room No.404, 4 th Floor Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Place New Delhi

CIC/MP/A/2014/ CIC/MP/A/2014/ CIC/MP/A/2014/000999

CIC/MP/A/2014/ CIC/MP/A/2014/ CIC/MP/A/2014/000999 Central Information Commission Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066 website cic.gov.in Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000997 CIC/MP/A/2014/000998 CIC/MP/A/2014/000999