Outcome of Income Tax investigation - CIC: The broad outcome of the investigation should be disclosed to the appellant as soon as the investigation is completed - whether the allegations made in the TEP are fully true, partially true or untrue
8 Dec, 2018
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points regarding Shri Ram Gopal and Smt. Archana and other family members, marriage expenditures survey report as per Section 133A (5) of the IT Act with cash flow details i.e., whether they satisfied the cash flow details, whether his father in law, wife, brother in law and sister in law were Income Tax Assesses, if so, whether they were filing the IT Returns on a regular basis and issues related thereto.
The CPIO and ACIT (OSD), Inv. IV, CBDT, vide its letter dated 16.08.2016, transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, O/o the DGIT (Inv.), Chandigarh. Subsequently, the CPIO and ITO (Inv) (HQ), Chandigarh, vide its letter dated 29.08.2016 transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, O/o the Pr. DIT (Inv.), Chandigarh. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, O/o the DGIT (Inv.) Chandigarh, vide its order dated 17.05.2017 transferred the First Appeal to the FAA, O/o the Pr. DIT (Inv), Chandigarh. Thereafter, the Pr. DIT (Inv.), Chandigarh vide its order dated 20/21.06.2017 stated that vide entry no. 16 of the Second Schedule to the RTI Act, 2005, the DGIT (Inv.) was not bound to provide any information under the Act.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Bharti;
Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Khanna, DCIT (OSD), CBDT, New Delhi in person, Mr. Narendra Dhanda, ITO, Chandigarh, and Mr. Manohar Munjal, ITO / CPIO – 2, Panchkula, through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that the details regarding the action taken on the alleged affidavit filed by his father-in-law Shri Ram Gopal had not been intimated to him. It was argued that his father-in-law was a labourer and in an affidavit sworn by him regarding expenditure of Rs. 20 lakhs on the marriage of his daughter was not substantiated with the source of income that required detailed investigation. Since 2016, the matter had been under consideration with the IT Authorities but no suitable reply was offered. In its reply, the Respondent at New Delhi and Chandigarh submitted that the subject matter was transferred to Panchkula which was the jurisdictional authority. The CPIO at Panchkula drew the attention of the Commission to Section 24 r/w Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 and stated that the said TEP had been categorized and was under investigation with the Field Jurisdictional Authorities. During the hearing, the Commission drew the attention of the Respondent to the judgments pronounced by the Commission to indicate the broad outcome of the decision to the Appellant.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(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; “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; “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; of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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.”
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
“(j) right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........”
In this context a reference was made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... “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) “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; “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; “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; 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.”
Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. “....Under the RTI Act “information” is defined under Section 2(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; “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; “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; which provides: “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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.” This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed.”
7. “....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the “public authority” under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him.”
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.”
This Commission referred to the order 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.”
DECISION:
In the light of the facts available on record and the submissions made by both the parties, it was noted that in the matter at hand, the investigation was in progress. However, the broad outcome of the investigation should be disclosed to the appellant as soon as the investigation is completed. The appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Rajesh Bharti v. CPIO, O/o the DGIT (Inv), CPIO, O/o the Pr. DIT (Inv), CPIO and ACIT (OSD) (Inv.- IV), M/o Finance, Department of Revenue, CBDT in Second Appeal No.: CIC/CCITC/A/2017/156422-BJ, Date of Decision : 16.11.2018