Application for Seeking Information under Section 6 of the RTI Act 2005
Central Public Information Officer (CPIO under RTI Act 2005)
O/o The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar,
Thiruvanathapuram – 695 003
Ref. 1. Tax Evasion Petition dated 21.02.2011 sent to Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Trivandrum.
2. 1st follow-up letter dated 11.05.2011
3. 2nd follow-up letter dated 21.07.2011
4. Your letter dated 18.08.2011 ref. F.Noxxx/CC-TVM/RTI/TECH/2011-12
(1) Full name of Applicant: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(2) Address: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(3) Grounds for RTI:
- This refers to my above mentioned Tax Evasion Petition and its subsequent follow-up letters to your office and your reply dated 18.08.11. Copy of first pages of above documents attached for your ready reference.
- Tax Evasion Petition was sent in the month of Feb 2010 and now already ten months are over and still the complainant has no clue if there is any action taken on it.
- Thanks for your prompt response wherein you were unable to disclose the information sought per sections 8(1)(g), 8(1)(h), 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005.
- While denying information sought citing section 8(1)(h), you have indirectly stated that investigation process is ongoing. That is fine.
- As a citizen of India reporting large tax evasions, it is my right to know status of my petition and if your esteemed department found any truth in my words. As such, I would like to have below information from your office.
(4) Particulars of the information required from files:
i. Concerned Department : Income Tax
ii. Please provide me following information from your records:-
a) Specify from your records current status of the above mentioned Tax Evasion Petition.
b) Advise me from your records, if the ITO issued notice to the parties, referred in my TEP, under sections 133/ 133A(5) if he/she is an assessee or under section 148 if he/she is not an assessee or under some other section? Please mention section used for such notices, if any, issued.
c) In case no notices issued as per item ‘b’ above, mention reasons on record for the same.
d) Advise me from your records, if the ITO ordered the evadors to file IT Returns in case he/she is not an assessee?. In that case, mention due date given to file their IT returns ?
a) Please provide information to each point separately. No clubbing of points even if information is repeated.
b) On receipt of the requested information under this application, I intend to carry out actual inspection of those records at your office. I may be permitted such inspection. I may also be permitted to seek assistance of my relative/friend during inspection, as I am not fully conversant with the language in which your records are maintained.
c) Please provide all information in ENGLISH only.
d) I am attaching Indian Postal Order for Rs. 10/- as fees for this RTI application.
e) If exemption is applicable for divulging the above information sought by the applicant under any of the sections ‘8’, ‘9’ and ‘24’ of the RTI Act 2005, then please issue rejection order with cogent reasons as per Section 7 (8) of the RTI act 2005 within 10 days of receipt of this application.
f) Would appreciate if your good office can collect all information to adjudicate and dispose of this application as per section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005 within 30 days of receipt of this application.
g) If the information requires to be sought from other officers who are deemed as Central/State Public Information Officers, then please follow the provisions of section 5(4) of the RTI Act 2005 within 15 days of receipt of this application.
h) Please be informed that as the information sought by the Applicant is about tax evasion that is a General Information in the larger public interest and Public Activity, as such it is exempted from section 11(1) (2) of the RTI Act 2005.
i) No private or personal information of the parties are sought here and as such the information cannot be denied under 8(1)(j).
j) No information is sought here which can be classified as “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” and as such Section 8(1)(g) cannot be applied here.
k) Mere update of status of investigation to the party who made the complaint will not hamper your investigation process and section 8(1)(h) cannot be applied to deny the information sought.
l) Please refer to attached copy of Order dated 3/12/2007 in WP(C) 3114/2007 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court where the Order of CIC dated 8th May 2006 (Ref. Appeal No.35/IC(A)/06 / F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00108…… Sh. Bhagat Singh Vs Director General of Income Tax, New Delhi) was modified to provide information available on record regarding the TEP filed by Sh Bhagat Singh without waiting to complete the entire investigation which would take years.
m) Please also refer attached CIC order in the case of Shri Dori Lal Vs Income Tax Department (File No.CIC/LS/A/2010/000090) where it was ordered to provide broad outcome of the TEP investigation in 4 months.
n) Please also refer attached CIC order in the case of Shri Brij Ballabh Singh Vs DGIT (Inv), Lucknow dated 1.1.2010 (File No.CIC/LS/A/2009/01014) where it had observed that “Besides, it is also to be noted that blank ban on disclosure of information regarding the action taken on tax evasion complaints may not always be in the best interest of the state revenues. In fact, it may dis-enthuse the information givers as information givers are generally keen to know whether the information provided by them has been of some value to the authorities or not. Feed back in this regard would motivate the information givers to provide further informations to the authorities and thereby enable them to curb tax evasion and enhance the state revenues. Viewed thus, despite the office of DGIT (Inv) being an exempted organisation, it may not always be the best policy to deny some kind of feed back to the information givers”.
- o) Please also refer attached CIC order in the case of Shri Chetan Anand Parashar Vs IT Department Gaziabad where the CIC observed as “ However, as regards outcome of the TEP filed by the appellant, this Commission has consistently held that outcome of the TEP can not be denied to the appellant only on the ground that the investigation is pending. Needless to say, investigation of TEP needs to be completed within a reasonable time frame and thereafter outcome thereof needs to be intimated to the person who filed the TEP so that he knows whether there is any substance in the TEP filed by him or otherwise.”. It also observed that “6. Shri Kale submits that investigation into the TEP is not yet complete and is continuing. This is not an acceptable position. The investigation can not go on at infinitum and must reach a finality within a reasonable time frame.”
p) Please also refer attached Order in the case of Sh. Virag R. Dhulia Vs Income Tax Deptt; Kolkata (File No. CIC/LS/A/2009/001179) where CIC observed that “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.” and ordered the IT department “to complete the investigation in next three months time and intimate the broad outcome thereof, as indicated herein above, to the appellant in three months time.”
q) Pls also refer attached Order of CIC in Sh Manish Kumar Vs Income Tax Department (File No. CIC/LS/A/2009/001067) where it was ordered to disclose outcome of TEP.
r) Having cited several judgments where it was ordered to provide feedback to the complainant on the TEP filed by him, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the basic information requested on the status of my TEP is liable to be provided by your esteemed office or else it would be construed as malafide denial of information against the RTI Act 2005 and non-compliance of orders of Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the CIC.
s) Kindly also note that, the original TEP was filed in the month of Feb 2011 and now in the beginning of Jan 2012, at least 10 months are over and I would like to remind you that TEP investigations cannot go on ad-infinitum and that has to be concluded in a reasonable amount of time with reference to above CIC orders. As such I would request you to expedite the investigation and I reserve my rights to know the final result of the TEP.
t) Would appreciate if your High Office can collect all information to adjudicate and dispose of my this application as per section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005 within 30 days of receipt of this application.
(6) (i) I state that the information sought does not fall within the exemptions contained in any of clauses under section 8 of the Right to Information Act 2005 and to the best of my knowledge it pertains to your office.
(ii) Whether the information is required by post or in person: Post
(iii) In case by post (Ordinary, Registered or Speed): Speed post
(7) Whether the applicant is below poverty line: No
(8) Kindly provide details of Appellate Authority to this compliant in case of further appeals are required. Please mention the complete Postal Address and fax/telephone numbers of the First Appellate Authority as per Section 11(4) of the RTI Act 2005.
Date: 3/01/2012 Signature of the Applicant
- 1. IPO # __________________ & __________________ for Rs. 20/-
- 2. Copy of the 4 reference documents (first page only)
- 3. Order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sh Bhagat Singh Vs CIC in WP(C) 3114/07
- 4. Order of CIC in Sh Dori Lal Vs Income Tax Department
- 5. Order of CIC in Shri Brij Ballabj Singh Vs DGIT (Inv), Lucknow
- 6. Order of CIC in Shri Chetan Ananad Parashar Vs IT Department, Gaziabad
- 7. Order of CIC in Shri Virag R. Dhulia Vs IT Dept, Kolkata
- 8. Order of CIC in Shri Manish Kuamr Vs It Department