CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2010/000090
Appellant : Shri Dori Lal
Public Authority : Income Tax Department
Date of Hearing : 20.4.2010
Date of Decision : 20.4.2010
FACTS
:
The matter is called for hearing today dated 20.4.2010. The parties
have not appeared before the Commission. Hence, it has been decided to
dispose of this matter on the basis of material on record.
2. It is noticed that the appellant appears to have filed a TEP against
Shri Kuljeet Singh, Shri Gurjeet Singh and Shri Sukhdev Singh etc regarding
construction of a palacial house by spending black money of about Rs 1.00
Crore and had sought information about the action taken by the Income Tax
Deptt: in this regard.
3. ITO, Ward 1 (3), Dehradun, vide order dated 23.9.2009 had
informed the appellant that the matter in hand did not fall in his jurisdiction.
On appeal, the AA vide order dated 28.8.2009 had refused to disclose any
information in terms of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
4. A similar matter had come up before this Commission in File No
CIC/LS/A/2009/01014 (Brij Ballabh Singh VS DGIT (Inv), Lucknow)
wherein the Commission had observed that it would be a good idea to give
feed back to the appellant regarding the TEP filed by them. The operative of
the order is extracted below :-
“3. 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 information 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.”
5. The ratio of the above decision squarely applies in this case. The
TEP may be true or false but he appellant is entitled to know the borad
outcome thereof. The full details of investigation, however, need not be
disclosed as it may impede the process of investigation.
6. In view of the above, the order of AA is set aside and he is hereby
directed to disclose the broad outcome of the TEP to the appellant in 04
months time. The details of investigation are not required to be disclosed.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied
against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to
the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.L. Dass)
Assistant Registrar
Address of parties :-
1. The Addl Commissioner of Income Tax
Range-1 & AA,
Income Tax Department, Dehradun,
Uttrakhand.
2. Shri Dori Lal
Panditwadi, Near Prem Nagar Police Station,
Dehradun, Uttrakhand.