Information regarding Income Tax arrears pending towards BCCI together with related file pertaining to its recovery was sought - CIC: Provide a self contained note on the factual position regarding the demand pending and the recoveries made for the period
8 Aug, 2018O R D E R
None of the documents relating to the RTI application, CPIO’s response, First Appeal or the order of the FAA, if any, are available on the record of the Commission.
The Registrar, CIC, New Delhi, vide its letter dated 02.05.2017, requested the Appellant/ Complainant to inform if his case had been disposed off or was still pending, whether he/ she still wishes to pursue the case, provide copies of relevant documents within a period of 30 days from date of receipt of communication to the Registrar to enable the Commission to reconstruct file of the Appeal/ Complaint and take further steps to take up the matter for hearing and disposal. However, no response was received from the Appellant against the aforementioned communication. Subsequently, the Registrar, CIC vide its note dated ‘Nil’ issued with the approval of the Chief Information Commissioner stated that in pursuance of the decision taken in the Commission’s meeting held on 21.03.2017, letters relating to missing files for the years 2009-2014 were written to the Appellants / Complainants/ CPIOs requesting them to provide the copies of the relevant documents to enable the Commission to reconstruct the file for disposal of the matter. It was stated that in the present case, no response was received either from the Appellant/ Complainant/CPIO, till date. A direction was also given to the Deputy Registrar to check if the case was still pending and if so, to put up to the Hon’ble IC for orders.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing on 25.08.2017:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal;
Respondent: Absent;
The Respondent remained absent during the hearing, despite prior intimation. The Under Secretary and CPIO (ITCC)/ Nodal officer (CBDT) vide its letter dated 18.08.2017, stated that the CPIO (ITCC) also acted as the Nodal officer for the RTI matters pertaining to the CBDT. In that capacity, he/ she transferred the RTI application received in the Division to the concerned CPIOs/ PAs. In the absence of any details of the subject/ records of the aforementioned RTI, it was difficult to ascertain as to what action was taken on the original RTIs, if they were received in the Division. It was therefore requested that the details of the aforementioned RTIs may kindly be furnished to their Division at the earliest to enable it take further necessary action in the matter.
During the hearing, the Appellant also conveyed his inability to access the records available with him due to certain technical problems with his computer. He requested for a short date for retrieving the RTI application failing which the Commission could decide the matter on its merits.
INTERIM DECISION:
Keeping in view the suggestion made by the Appellant to provide him with another opportunity to trace the relevant documents, the matter stands adjourned for a week. The Dy. Registrar is instructed to fix another date of hearing in the first week of September, 2017 in the matter.
NOTE: Subsequently the Dy. Registrar, vide its letter dated 30.08.2017, fixed 07.09.2017 as the next date of hearing
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing on 07.09.2017:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal;
Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Panwar, AO/CPIO, DIT (CR) and Mrs. Indu Bala Saini, DDIT/CPIO, DIT(CR);
The Appellant stated that he had submitted the relevant documents to the Commission on 28.08.2017 which were sent to the Respondent vide the Commission’s letter dated 30.08.2017 issued by Dy. Registrar. After examining the relevant documents submitted by the Appellant, the Respondent Public Authority submitted that they had already replied to a similar RTI application which was decided by the Commission also in File No. CIC/Rm/a/2012/000196/LS dated 04.06.2013. On perusal of the replies, the Appellant contended that the Commission’s order referred to above was pertaining to a different RTI query (no. 06) whereas, in accordance with the papers submitted by him, he was seeking reply to points 04 & 05 only. The Respondent in its response requested for some more time to address the issues and collate information in respect of these two queries.
The Commission observed that queries 04 and 05 of the RTI application on which the Appellant had approached the Commission pertained to complete and detailed information regarding Income Tax arrears pending towards BCCI and detailed information together with related file/ notings/ correspondence, etc pertaining to recovery of IT arrears for Assessment Year 2009-2010. It was felt that such information should be provided to the Appellant since it involves matters of larger public interest regarding payment of income tax by a body which administers, regulates and controls the game of cricket followed by large number of cricketing fans all over the country. Moreover, even in an earlier order on similar issues in File No. CIC/RM/A/2012/000196/LS dated 04.06.2013, the Commission had observed as under:
“4. Besides, the appellant may also be informed as to whether any arrears of tax are still pending against the BCCI and if yes, statistical information in regard thereto may be provided to the appellant.”
On the issue of larger public interest involved in a matter, the Commission referred to the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 wherein it was held as under:
22. “The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Ed,n.)]. ”
Also the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated 13/07/2012 in (W.P. (C) No. 1243 of 2011- UPSC vs. R.K. Jain) wherein while discussing on the issue of disclosure of information in larger public interest the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
“The second half of the first part of clause (j) of Section 8(1) shows that when personal information in respect of a person is sought, the authority concerned shall weigh the competing claims i.e., the claim for the protection of personal information of the concerned person on the one hand, and the claim of public interest on the other, and if “public interest” justifies disclosure, i.e., the public interest outweighs the need for protection of personal information, the concerned authority shall disclose the information ”
INTERIM DECISION-I:
Considering the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the fact that this was one of the old cases traced out by the Commission in the missing files pertaining to the years 2009 to 2014, in the interest of natural justice, it is incumbent upon the Commission to ensure that the information sought by the Appellant is provided to him at the earliest. In accordance with the request made by the Respondent seeking four weeks time to trace the relevant information, the request was agreed to keeping in view the sensitivity and criticality of the subject matter.
The Dy. Registrar is instructed to fix another date of hearing in the matter accordingly.
Note: Subsequently, the Dy. Registrar, vide its letter dated fixed 09.10.2017 as the next date of hearing in the matter.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing on 09/10/2017:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal;
Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Panwar, AO/CPIO, DIT (CR);
The Appellant submitted that he had not received any information, till date. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that the information sought by the Appellant was not available in their office and that they had sent a communication to CPIO O/o Pr. CIT, Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai, which was still awaited. The Commission expressed its concern over the delay in providing the information that defeated the purpose of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, as a last measure, strict instructions were given to the Respondent to ensure a suitable reply within a period of 15 days, failing which it shall be presumed that they have nothing to add and decision would be taken on the merits of the case. The Commission decided to list this case for scheduled hearing on 06.11.2017.
INTERIM DECISION-II:
The Dy. Registrar is directed to issue the notice of hearing to all concerned, forthwith.
The Appeal stands adjourned.
Note: The Registrar, CIC, vide its Office Order dated 13.10.2017 stated that cases for hearing could be scheduled from 13.11.2017 onwards. In compliance with the Office Order, the Dy. Registrar, vide its notice dated 17.10.2017 scheduled hearing of this matter on However, the Dy. Register vide its notice dated further rescheduled the hearing on 29.11.2017.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing on 29/11/2017:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal;
Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Panwar, AO/CPIO, DIT (CR);
In continuation to the discussion held on the subject matter, the Respondent in his written submission dated 17.11.2017 informed the Appellant that Income Tax Arrears as per the Dossier of BCCI from 2011-12 to 2014-15 was Rs.57918.91 Lakhs. It was also informed that for the AY 2011-12 a refund of Rs.70.72 Crores would be generated after verifying the payment and challan which would be adjusted against the outstanding arrears. The balance demand had been stayed till December, 2017. When queried about a copy of the stay order from the relevant competent authority, the Respondent desired some more time to procure a copy of the stay order.
In its written submission the Commission was delivered a copy of the letter sent by the DDO (R)/ CPIO, D/o Revenue, Directorate of Income Tax (Recovery and TDS) dated 16.10.2017 enclosing a copy of a letter received from the DCIT, Central Circle 6 (2), Mumbai regarding queries no. 04 and 05 of the RTI application. The Appellant emphasized that keeping in view the larger public interest involved therein, the matter should be heard after December, 2017.
INTERIM DECISION-III:
The Dy. Registrar is directed to fix a suitable date of hearing in the matter early 2018.
NOTE: Subsequently, the Dy. Registrar, vide its letter dated fixed 04.01.2018 as the next date of hearing.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing on 04.01.2018:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal;
Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Addl. DIT (R); Mr. Sanjay Panwar, AO/CPIO, DIT (CR);
The Respondent submitted that the matter originally did not pertain to their jurisdiction and that all relevant information received from the DCIT, Circle 6(2), Mumbai regarding query nos. 04 & 05 had been furnished to the Appellant vide their letter dated 16.10.2017. It was further conveyed that they had forwarded to the Commission a letter written by Shri Sanjay Panwar, CPIO (Recovery) dated 28.12.2017 addressed to the Appellant enclosing therewith a copy of letter dated 15.12.2017 received by their office on 19.12.2017 from the O/o the DCIT, Central Circle 6 (2), Mumbai wherein a copy of the stay order was enclosed. In the letter dated 14.08.2017 written by the DCIT, Central Circle Range- 6(2), Mumbai addressed to the BCCI, Mumbai, it was stated that a direction was given to BCCI for further payment of Rs. 200 Crores by March, 2017 and payment of balance demand by December, 2017. It was also stated that the stay would be valid if the terms of payment of Rs. 200 Crores were fulfilled. Also, it was requested that out of the total sum of Rs. 200 Crores, a sum of Rs. 100 crores should be deposited in the month of February, 2017. It was also mentioned that the stay application filed would be treated as cancelled if the terms of Rs. 200 Crores were not fulfilled. Therefore, it was noted by the Commission that the stay had been granted by the Respondent Public Authority and there was no judicial intervention in the matter.
On being queried by the Commission regarding why the RTI application was not forwarded to the concerned CPIO earlier and the reasons for not taking this stand during the earlier hearings, no satisfactory response was offered by the Respondent. On being further questioned regarding the present status of the stay proceedings, the Respondent submitted that payment of Rs.200/- crores as desired in the letter dated 14.08.2017 had since been made and the same was reflected in the details of demand recovered as mentioned in the letter dated 09.10.2017 sent by the DCIT 6(2), Mumbai. It was further assured that they would expeditiously intimate the details of the pending demand as on date for the period till AY 2014-2015 to the Appellant.
The Appellant submitted that at this stage he was also desirous to obtain information regarding pending arrears of taxes for the AY 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 and referred to Section 19(8)(a) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including (i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form; (ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be; (iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information; (iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records; (v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials; (vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 4; to submit that the Commission had broad powers to issue directions for providing additional information at the Second Appeal stage. The Respondent objected to this request and argued that the information for AY 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 was not part of the original RTI application and that it would be appropriate, if the Appellant filed a fresh RTI application on such issues with the concerned CPIO. The Appellant also stated that he was under the impression that stay proceedings were pending before the High Court and not within the department. Moreover, it was prayed that an observation be made by the Commission regarding the lackadaisical approach adopted by the Respondent Public Authority in the tax recovery process.
The Commission reiterated that the information should be provided to the Appellant since it involved matters of larger public interest regarding payment of income tax by a body which administers, regulates and controls the game of cricket followed by large number of cricketing fans all over the country. Moreover, even in an earlier order on similar issues in File No. CIC/RM/A/2012/000196/LS dated 04.06.2013, the Commission had observed as under:
“4. Besides, the appellant may also be informed as to whether any arrears of tax are still pending against the BCCI and if yes, statistical information in regard thereto may be provided to the appellant.”
FINAL DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the Respondent to provide a self contained note on the factual position vis-a-vis’ the demand pending and the recoveries made for the period sought by the Appellant, within a period of 07 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission would also like to draw the attention of the Tax Recovery Authorities about the approach, procedure and extant guidelines followed by the Respondent in recovery of arrears of taxes due from the public body (BCCI) and the interest accrued thereon in this particular case vis-a-vis the philosophy pursued in similarly placed matters.
The Appeal stands disposed with the above direction.
(Bimal Julka)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. Central Board of Direct Taxes & Directorate of Income Tax (Recovery) in Appeal No.:-CIC/RM/A/2012/000197-BJ-FINAL, Date of Final Decision: 05.01.2018