CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2009/00798
Appellant : Shri Sunil Kumar
Public Authority : Income Tax Department
(through Shri Sanjeev Sabharwal, Senior
Standing Counsel).
Date of Hearing : 30.12.2009
Date of Decision : 30.12.2009
FACTS
:
The matter, in short, is that the appellant had informed the
concerned officers of the Income Tax Department regarding large scale tax
evasion by M/s KEW Precision Parts Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, in July, 2006.
By his RTI application dated 2.9.2008, the appellant had requested the
CPIO to intimate him the present status of the matter. Shri J.C. Bindra,
ACIT, Circle-5(1), New Delhi, had advised the appellant to get in touch
with him in the beginning of 2009. Accordingly, the appellant vide letter
dated 5.1.2009 had requested for the above information from the CPIO.
The CPIO vide order dated 5.2.2009 had refused to disclose this
information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
2. The Appellant Authority had affirmed the decision of the CPIO
stating therein that the appellant had a vested interest in seeking this
information.
3. Aggrieved with the decisions of CPIO and AA, the appellant has
filed the present appeal.
4. Heard on 30.12.2009. The appellant is represented by Advocate
Achin Aren. The Income Tax Department is represented by Shri Sanjeev
Sabharwal, Senior Standing Counsel for the Department. It is the
submission of Advocate Sabharwal that the competent authority has
proceeded u/s 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act and an appropriate order
has been passed. He would also submit that this order has been passed
inpersonnem and not inrem and, therefore, copy of the order cannot be
provided to the appellant. He also would plead that this is personal
information which is protected from disclosure in terms of clause (j) u/s
8(1) of the RTI Act.
5. On the other hand, Advocate Aren would plead that he is not
seeking any personal information. All that he is interested to know is
whether any lawful action has been taken on the appellant’s information.
DECISION
6. For the sake of transparency in public affairs, which appears to be
the guiding force behind the enactment of RTI Act, it would but be
appropriate that the information giver is given a feed back by the public
authority regarding the accuracy/efficacy or otherwise of the information
provided by him. Such feed back will encourage him to provide further
information, if previous information was found to be of some value to the
public authority. It will be a win-win situation for the public authority.
Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CPIO is hereby
directed to provide broad information to the appellant as to whether his tax
evasion complaint was acted upon by the competent authority and whether
any truth was found therein. No details about the assessment need to be
provided to the appellant.
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.
(D.C. Singh)
Under Secretary & Dy. Registrar
Address of parties :-
1. Shri Sanjeev Sabharwal
Senior Standing Counsel,
Income Tax Department,
C.R. Building, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
2. Shri Sunil Kumar
S-2/83, 2nd Floor,
Old Mahavir Nagar,
New Delhi-110018