CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
CIC/AT/A/2008/00324 CIC/AT/A/2008/00325 CIC/AT/A/2008/00326
CIC/AT/A/2008/00327 CIC/AT/A/2008/00328 CIC/AT/A/2008/00329
Total : 6 Appeals
Dated, the 16th July, 2008.
Appellants : Shri Jagdish Singh Saini
Smt. Anita Saini
Shri Amarpreet Singh Chandhok
Smt. Gurvinder Kaur Chandhok
Shri Gurpreet Singh Chandhok
Respondents : Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation
Appeal Nos.CIC/AT/A/2008/00325 and 328 filed by Shri Jagdish Saini
and Smt.Anita Saini, and appeal numbers 324, 326, 327 and 329 filed by
Shri Amarpreet Singh Chandhok, Smt.Gurvinder Kaur Chandhok and
Shri Gurpreet Singh Chandhok came up for hearing on 10.07.2008. Appellants
were absent, whereas the respondents were represented by the CPIO,
Shri Munesh Kumar, Addl. Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Raipur.
2. The CPIO submitted that the appellants herein have filed identical
RTI-applications for the same information which is related to a search and
seizure operation conducted by the Department of Income Tax (Investigation)
against the appellants.
3. CPIO further urged that through a government notification dated
27.03.2008, the DGIT (Investigation) has been exempted from the operation of
the RTI Act under Section 24 read with Second Schedule of the Act these
appeals are no more maintainable.
4. To a query from the Commission whether a copy of the search warrant on
the basis of which the search and seizure operation was carried out could be
disclosed to the appellants, CPIO replied that the income tax law and the CBDT
instructions were silent on the point of providing copies of the search warrants to
those whose premises were searched. He explained that the search warrants are
usually shown to the persons whose premises are to be searched and is also
informed about his rights and obligations. There was, therefore, no secrecy as
regards this document.
Page 1 of 2
5. The appellants in their written-submissions have elaborately argued as to
why the information requested by them did not attract any of the exemption
sub-sections under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. These arguments are somewhat
dated in view of the latest developments about the exemption granted to the
DGIT (Investigations) under Section 24 of the RTI Act.
Decision:
6. In consideration of the material before me and after hearing the
respondents, it is directed that the copies of the search warrants which were
already disclosed to the appellant at the time of the search and seizure operation
by the DGIT (Investigation) officials, may be provided to the appellants within
two weeks from the date of the receipt of this order.
7. As regards the other information requested by the appellant, it is noted
that since this information has not yet been disclosed, it won’t be possible to
disclose it any more in view of the exemption under Section 24 of the RTI Act
granted to the DGIT (Investigation). The argument that since the disclosure
application under these appeals were moved prior to grant of exemption to the
DGIT (Investigation) (Section 24) that exemption will not apply to the present
appeals is untenable. Regardless of when the RTI-applications related to these
appeals were moved, the fact remained that the information as requested through
those RTI-applications had not yet been disclosed. Now that the competent
authority has specifically allowed Section-24-exemption to the DGIT
(Investigation), it doesn’t stand to reason that despite these exemptions being
granted to the DGIT (Investigation), the information requested should be
disclosed regardless. Such an action would amount to denying to the respondents
the exemption acknowledgedly enjoyed by them, on nothing more substantial
ground than the request for disclosure having been filed prior to the grant of the
exemption. Any such inference would amount to defeating the exemption
undoubtedly enjoyed by the DGIT (Investigation).
8. In view of above, it is directed that there shall be no disclosure as regards
the information requested through these RTI-applications except for the search
warrants as spelt-out in paragraph 6 above.
9. Appeals are disposed of with these directions.
10. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(A.N. TIWARI)
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Page 2 of 2