In case the woman’s party claims to have given huge amount in dowry, and if they don’t have income to support such amount of dowry, then you can file Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) followed by RTI on TEP to Income tax department against FIL and dowry givers. Basic idea is to find out how they were able to give so much dowry if they do not have income. In case it comes out from RTI that they did not have so much income then their case will weaken considerably. If they still insist that they gave that much dowry, then they will have to explain to IT department whey they did not disclose that income in those and previous years. IT rules are clear that if someone hides income to avoid income tax, they have to pay back income taxes along with interest for all the years and also penalty for evasion of income tax.
- What is Mean by TEP
Tax Evasion Petition: A complain letter to Income tax Department (CBDT) with proof to investigate the revenue loss to government ex-checker because of such evasion
- Why TEP
Mostly wife always give the list of stridhan 3-4 times from the actual list of stridhan / huge amount of dowry in her compliant. So we have the legal tool for this we should complaint in the Income Tax dept. for verifying that they’ve declared that much income or not. If they’ve not declared that much income then recover the tax with some penalty. But very few people go to Income Tax Dept to ask for verifying their income.
- When to file TEP
- If your wife do the false allegation in DV affidavit case or in 498a FIR and about huge amount of money spend in Marriage and stridhan or dowry or exchange of money in your marriage.
- If your Father in Law has disproportionate assets w.r.t his income, TEP is possible, You have to show undisclosed income, unaccounted flow of cash, unexplained expenditure etc. to file TEP.
- If the value of the furniture, gold, cash was not proportionate to his income at the time of expenditure, you can file TEP.
What are the task before filing the TEP a. Get the certified copy of the compliant
- Get the PAN number if you know c. Prepared the proper application
- Get the address of Income tax department in Your area
- What document required to file the TEP
- TEP application- Format is available on blow link
- DV case or Crpc 125 Case Affidavit or FIR copy of 498a or any authentic document as per evidence act where your wife told they spend huge money in Marriage / dowry / stridhan
- What are the grounds for filling TEP?
If you have FIR copy/DV copy/Bills of marriage expenses claimed by opposite party wherein they have mentioned huge amount (Beyond their capacity to spend). Bills of marriage expenses claimed by opposite party if you have any detail wherein they have mentioned larger amount (Beyond their capacity to spend).Better to have more and more information like their bank accounts/properties also
- I don’t have Pan number of Father-In-Law how to file the TEP
No need to PAN number to file the TEP just give the full name, address detail
- How much time it has take to resolved the quarry under TEP
It take the time generally 1.5 year to 3 year depending upon your follow up / RTI
9.What are the Advantages of TEP
- For sure this will go against the 498A / DV family as it will expose their false allegations b. You can screw the 498a family royally, with this “Legal Cruelty” tool.
- Can handle without legal aid. No lawyer expanse
- Fire numerous RTIs based on the opponents’ profile and fast track the TEP investigation..
- You can call the Investigation officer with Investigation report using witness summons in your CROSS stage then all the false of dowry will be nullified and their case is weak, you have upper hand.
- What are the Disadvantages:
- Will not work when less amount is claimed as dowry
- Needs to cope up with time delay for RTI replies from govt. departments & information commission response for appeals.
- Government machinery may not work with expected efficiency. d. Very indirect method of attacking the opponents.
- Where should I make a complaint?
To “The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax” of your particular state with a copy to DGIT(Investigations) Income Tax Department. Secondly to Member Investigation, CBDT, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block. New Delhi.
- How TEP Strategy work
- Ask for detailed Investigation report of the proven TEP.
- Submit the same in the 498A court questioning that with IT Deptt also not able to find the source of income to pay such a dowry, the case definitely is false as it has been investigated by a party having no interest (i.e. IT Deptt) and that too a Govt. department.
- To submit to the 498A court that the family is itself dishonest by nature and hence has filed this 498A for encasings money using Law as an extortion tool.
- Format of TEP Application Mynation sample format
- What will happen to 498a family if you are able to successful filed TEP a. They need to pay the Tax of undisclosed income
- They need to disclose the source of income from unaccounted amount
- Plus penalty, which can not be less than 100% of the evaded amount and not more than 300% of the evaded amount
- You will get the 10% prize amount
- Following precaution should be take care before filing the RTI on TEO a. Your RTI application is proper and short
- You should have provided grounds for disclosure of the said information by stating that the Truth and Justice are the superior most “Public Interest” subjects and the denial of information can hamper your liberty and Constitutional right under article 21 regarding Right to Live with Dignity.
- You should file the multiple RTI with short question
- While asking information under RTI Act care should be taken as there is no need to ask income tax return. Instead ask for whether the income shown is below or above the one claimed in your FIR or CAWCell complaint. Then it will be easier for them to reply as here you are not asking return, neither you are asking amount.You will get the information which will be sufficient.
- Also do ask for how many times notices were sent, if one of the notice is not complied then it attracts penalties and so on.
- How to get the output of TEP
Outcome of the TEP has to be disclosed as per the following decisions of the CIC: http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_deci…17_M_54145.pdf http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decision…4032009-01.pdf
- What is term Tax evader?
Tax evader is the person who has not submitted required Income tax as per law.
- Step and Process of TEP
- Filled TEP in Income Tax department
- Sent RTI to find get status of TEP on November ,
- If you get the negative response of the RTI “The CPIO denied the information requested, citing Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. ”
- Sent first Appeal to concern office 2
- You will get some response from of my first appeal and RTI as well and in the RTI response f. Ask the detail report in your case using CRPC 91 or witness summons
- Get the final report from the authority
- Problem with TEP
- One major hurdle is the statutory limitation of TEP of 6 years.
- More than 6 years old, the department are allowed to not investigate apparently they carry the records only 6 years back – Hence filing TEP as soon as possible is best thingto do.
- IT Returns can be opened for 4 years, if the amount realizable is less than 1 Lakh d. IT Returns can be opened for 6 years, if the amount realizable is more than 1 Lakh
- What are the different categories of TEP INVESTIGATION?
- Z- Categories – All the personal complient are consider like TEP against 498a Family, this is slow and low priority
- Y- Categories – All the business man with huge turn over this is medium priority c. X- Categories – All Major fraud this is has the highest priority
- What is the judgments refer by Income tax authorities to reject information under RTI Act 2005? The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. CIC dated October 3,2012 has held that the details disclosed by a person in his Income Tax Returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act unless a larger public interest is involved. In the instant case, the appellant has not been able to establish that the information sought for is for larger public interest. In fact, the appellant has sought this information on the ground that it was on the basis of his complaint that the IT authorities had ordered reassessment. In the light of the Supreme Court decision, the Commission concurs with the decision of the CPIO and Appellate Authority.(Ref. (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012 (@ CC 14781/2012)
- CIC judgment which You should attach with First Appeal. File No.CIC/DS/A/2011/003792/RM
“As the appellant has provided information relating to tax evasion, the CPIO is directed to inform the appellant as to whether the information provided by him was true or false and to disclose the broad outcome of the reassessment, without divulging specific details, once the process is completed.”
- Where can I complaint if Income Tax officer is not taking proper action on TEP? You can complaint to Vigilance department of Income Tax. Refer to below link for more detail http://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/vigilance/compl.html
- How can I show larger public interest in my RTI against TEP?
Firstly, Tax Evasion is a crime and the knowledge is needed in public domain. (It is different than asking IT Returns). Secondly the information is required to prove innocence of few people (More than ONE)
- What happen after filing TEP
Income tax department issue notice u/s 142(1) of income tax Act. The parties need to respond within one month otherwise there is a penalty of upto 10 000/- for disobeying notice. But no one cares as income tax officer never implement. The copy of the summon has a clause which reads as follows
“Without prejudice to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, if you intentionally omit to so attend and give evidence or to produce the books of accounts and or documents a penalty for a sum which shall not be less than Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) but which may extend to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) for each default or failure shall be imposed upon you under section 272A(1)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961/37(2) of Wealth Tax act, 1957.”
If required ITO can issue summons u/s 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein opposite party will be directed to present himself/herself before ITO
1.Ms. Girija Varma and Bhagat Singh for the Petitioner. Ms. Sonia Mathur for the Respondent.
Highlights of Judgement :
The writ petition was filed by the respondent No. 1 herein praying for quashing of the order of the Central Information Commission with a direction that the information sought by the respondents under the Right to Information Act, 2005 should be supplied immediately.
1.The respondent No. 1, in order to enable him to defend the criminal prosecution, approached the Income-tax Department with a Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) dated 24-9-2003
2However, the Department summoned the wife of the respondent No. 1 to present her case before them. The respondent No. 1 made repeated requests to the Director of Income-tax Department (Investigation) to ascertain and know the status of the hearing and TEP proceedings.
- Having failed in his endeavour, the respondent No. 1 moved an application under the Right to Information Act in November, 2005 praying for the following information:
“(i)Fate of Petitioner’s complaint (Tax Evasion Petition) dated 24-9-2003.
(ii)What is the other source of income of petitioner’s wife Smt. Saroj Nirmal than from teaching as a primary teacher in a private school?
(iii)What action the Department had taken against Smt. Saroj Nirmal after issuing a notice under section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, pursuant to the said Tax Evasion Petition.).”
- The aforesaid application filed by the respondent No. 1 herein was rejected by the Public Information Officer designated under the Act by the Income-tax Department as against which an appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority, which too rejected the request to have access to the aforesaid information.
5.As against the said order of the Appellate Authority, the respondent No. 1 filed a second appeal on 1-3-2006 before the Central Information Commission praying for setting aside the orders of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the writ petition. The Central Information Commission by an order dated 8-5-2006 allowed the second appeal and set aside the rejection of information.
6.However, it was directed that the report should be disclosed only after the entire process of investigation and tax recovery, if any, is completed. The appellant/Department has accepted the aforesaid order of the CIC and, therefore, the said order of the CIC has become final and binding. However, the Department has not disclosed all the information in terms of the aforesaid order on the plea that notices under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 have been issued but no final assessment orders have been passed. It is also stated that only after recovery of taxes, if any, details could be furnished.
7.The learned Single Judge considered the pleas raised and thereafter it was held that no reason has come out as to why the aforesaid information should not be supplied to the respondent No. 1 even at this stage.
8.The contention and defence based upon section 8(1)(i) was rejected. The said direction and findings rejecting the plea under section 8(1)(i) to disclose information has not been challenged by the appellant.
9.Apprehension should be based on some ground or reason. Information has been sought for by the complainant and not the assessee. Nature of information is not such which interferes with the investigation or helps the assessee. Information may help the respondent No. 1 from absolving himself in the criminal trial.
10.It appears that the appellant has held back information and delaying the proceedings for which the respondent No. 1 felt aggrieved and filed the aforesaid writ petition in this Court. We also find no reason as to why the aforesaid information should not be supplied to the respondent No. 1. In the grounds of appeal, it is stated that the appellant is ready and willing to disclose all the records once the same is summoned by the criminal court where proceedings under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code are pending. If that is the stand of the appellant, we find no reason as to why the aforesaid information cannot be furnished at this stage as the investigation process is not going to be hampered.
It has not been explained in what manner and how information asked for and directed will hamper the assessment proceedings.
- 11. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused in any manner to the Department even if the said information is disclosed.
- 12. This Court takes a serious note of the two-year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondents in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued
Useful Judgment while filing the TEP
- 1. In-Laws should disclose source of income for the exorbitant claims in 498a and DV case
Regarding False dowry allegations, Interpretation of the statute by delhi High Court. PARTIES: SMT NEERA SINGH VS STATE OF DELHI, DELHI HC, COURT: DELHI HIGH COURT, Date of Order: on 23 February, 2007, BENCH: JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA.
Useful judgment whiling filing the TEP+RTI
- 1. TEP investigation and outcome must be provided to appellant
CIC:: File No.CIC/RM/A/2013/000635, Appellant: Shri Om Prakash Singh, New Delhi
- 2. CPIO to disclose the broad outcome of the TEP to the appellant in 04 months time CIC:: File No. CIC/LS/A/2009/001067 Appellant – Shri Manish Kumar, Date of Decision 04.03.2010
3.TEP investigation and outcome must be provided to the appellant in 03 months time and CPIO must provide the information under CrPC 91
CIC:: File No.CIC/LS/A/2009/001113 Appellant : Shri Chetan Anand Parashar, Date of Decision : 19.2.2010
- 4. TEP investigation should not and infinitum and that it should be concluded in a reasonable time frame CIC:: File No. CIC/LS/A/2009/001179 ( Appellant – Sh. Virag R. Dhulia ) /Date of decision – 18.02.2010
- 5. Income tax department should provide the Father in Law Income tax detail
CIC :: Appeal : No. CIC/LS/A/2010/001044DS Appellant /Complainant : Sh. Manoj Kumar Saini, Jaipur Date of Decision : 24 March, 2011
- 6. TEP should finish within 3 months,
CIC :: File No.CIC/LS/A/2009/001113 Appellant : Shri Chetan Anand Parashar Date of Decision : 19.2.2010
- 1. Judgment from CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION in CIC/AT/A/2008/0268. Where Information Commissioner allows the similar petition TEP information allowed and cannot be said to be a personal matter of the tax evader not exempted under Sec 8(1) of the RTI Act.
2.Judgment from CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION in Wide Decision No.174/IC (A)/2006. Where Information Commissioner allows the similar petition TEP information and its outcomes should be disclosed not exempted under Sec 8(1) of the RTI Act.
3.Judgment from CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION in CIC/AT/A/2008/01389. Where Information Commissioner allows the similar petition RTI of dowry matter allowed and hereby directed to disclose the above mentioned not exempted under Sec 8(1) of the RTI Act.
4.Judgment from CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION in CIC/SG/C/2009/000702/4128. Where Information Commissioner where he defines the concept of privacy, fundamental right of the Complainant as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution.
5.Judgment from CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION in CIC/WB/A/2007/00064. Where Information Commissioner explains about the “sensitive personal data” means personal data consisting of information.
6.Judgment from CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION in CIC/LS/A/2010/001044DS. Where Information Commissioner allows the similar petition TEP information allowed related to dowry and not exempted under Sec 8(1) of the RTI Act.
7.Judgment from CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION in CIC/DS/A/2011/002918/RM. Where Information Commissioner allows the similar petition TEP information allowed related to dowry and not exempted under Sec 8(1) of the RTI Act.
8.Judgment from CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION in CIC/DS/A/2011/003358. Where Information Commissioner allows the similar petition of the IT Return allow in dowry case is not exempted under Sec 8(1) of the RTI Act.
9.Judgment from CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION in CIC/DS/A/2011/003359. Where Information Commissioner allows the similar petition TEP information allowed and not exempted under Sec 8(1) of the RTI Act.
10.If CPIO disclose TEP info then doubt of black money will be removed from husband mind and this way the information will fulfill the objective of RTI to check the corruption as said by Hon’ble justice Shri Pradeep Kant (Allahabad High Court) in the recent judgment under Writ Petition No. 3262 (MB) of 2008, Public Information Officer Vs. State Information Commission, U.P. and others
11.Honorable Central Information Commissioner Prof. M.M. Ansari Wide Decision F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00108.
The appellant has mentioned the reason, as above, for seeking information on the Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) filed by him against his wife. The aspects of strained human relations that may become the reason for seeking information is out of the purview of our mandate. However, the public actions, irrespective of the cause of such actions, and disclosure of its outcome, fall under the domain of RTI Act. The action taken on TEP has to be examined accordingly.
12.Honorable Chief Information Commissioner Shri Shailesh Gandhi Wide Decision No. CIC/LS/A/2009/000647/SG/5887 dated
14-12-2009 in TEP / RTI matter where he defines the concept Section 8(1)(h) of the Act provides
13 The High Court of Delhi has held in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP (C) No. 3114/2007 that
- 14. Honorable Central Information Commissioner Prof. M.M. Ansari Wide Decision No.174/IC(A)/2006 in same kind of TEP/RTI matter
- 15. Honorable Information Commissioner Shri Sailesh Gandhi of CIC bearing his Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2009/000702/4128 dated 14-07-2009 where he defines the concept of privacy ,which may act as a guidance for every public information officer
- 16. “In Peoples Union of Civil Liberties Vs. Union of India, however, in his judgment of 13.2.2003 Shri P.V. Reddy J. has ruled
17 That False Dowry cases are a matter of “larger public interest” and that the information relating to IT returns of in-laws be furnished to husband,CIC judgment (Appeal : No. CIC/LS/A/2010/001044DS)
- 18. That, Section 6(2) of the Act clearly states that the Applicant shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information