667TJayaChandranITOChennai1811 11 1
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Block IV, 4Th Floor, Old JNU Campus
New Delhi-110067
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/00067/LS
Appellant: Shri T. Jayachandran
Public Authority: Income Tax Department,
Company Circle-II(2), Chennai
(through Shri Vivekanand, Additional CIT
and Shri P.R. Narayanan, ITO)
Date of Hearing: 18/11/2008
Date of Decision 18/11/2008
FACTS
:-
In his letter of 23/11/200, the Appellant had made the following request to the
CPIO:-
“I request you to kindly furnish a copy of the Assessment Orders and connected
Appellate Orders of Indian Bank No.31, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001 a Public Sector
Undertaking as under:
1. Assessment Order dated 30.3.1994 for Assessment Year 1991-92
2. Order of CIT Appeals XI in ITA No.397/94-95 dated 13.3.2003
3. Assessment Order dated 20.3.1995 for Assessment Year 1992-93
4. Order of CIT Appeals XI against the above Assessment Orders
5. Assessment Order dated 25.1.1996 for Assessment Year 1993-94
6. Order of CIT Appeals XI in ITA No.TR268/01-02 dated 5.7.2004″
2. The CPIO had denied this information on the ground that as it was not covered u/s
130(8) Income Tax Act and u/s8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 by his letter dated 13/12/2007.
The Appellant had filed an Appeal dated 29/12/2007 before the appellate Authority. The
Appellate Authority, vide order dated 25/01/2008 had upheld the decision of CPIO.
3. The present Appeal has been directed against the order of the Appellate
Authority.
667TJayaChandranITOChennai1811 11 2
4. we had issued notice to the parties for hearing on 05/11/2008. The Appellant was
represented by Advocate Ilam Bharathi. However, nobody appeared on behalf of the
Income Tax Department. Accordingly, notice was issued to CPIO and Appellate
Authority for hearing on 18/11/2008.
5. The matter was heard on 18/11/2008. The Income Tax Department is represented
by S/Shri Vivekanand, Additional CIT and P.R. Narayanan, ITO (CPIO). The Appellant
did not appear before the Commission.
6. Shri Vivekanand, Additional CIT, drew my attention to the written statements
dated 31/10/2008, filed by Shri Narayanan (CPIO), against the disclosure of the
information in question. He also adduced the following arguments against the disclosure
of information:-
(i) As the information requested for relates to a third party, i.e., Indian Bank,
it cannot be disclosed
(ii) No public interest has been established in the disclosure of this
information.
(iii) The Appellant had requested Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Chennai,
calling for this information u/s 138 of Income Tax Act, which was
declined. He has now filed the WB before the Madras High Court against
the order of the Chief Income Tax Commissioner as the matter is sub
judice, this information cannot be disclosed u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
(iv) The Appellant’s Income Tax Assessment Appeal on the same issues is
presently pending in the Madras High Court. As information cannot be
disclosed, the matter being sub judice, as it may impede the process of
justice. There is fiduciary relationship between the Indian Bank and the
Income Tax Department and, thus, disclosure is exempted us 8(1)(e) of the
RTI Act.
(v) The Indian Bank itself is a Public Authority and the Appellant could have
moved the Indian Bank for this information.
(vi) The Appeal o the Indian Bank against its Income Tax Assessment is also
pending before the Madras High Court, so the matter is sub judice under
section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
667TJayaChandranITOChennai1811 11 3
7. On the other hand, the submissions of Shri Ilam Bharati, representative of the
Appellant are as summarized below:-
(i) No doubt, the statutory Appeal is pending in the Hon’ble Madras High
Court, but that Appeal is only on the point of law and not on facts. He is
requesting for the assessment Orders referred to above to determine facts.
(ii) Chandrakala & Co. is Proprietor Firm of the Appellant. It is the
contention of shri Ilam Bharati that, as per his information, an amount of
Rs.14.73 crores has been shown as Income Tax of the Indian Bank and the
same amount has been assessed as income of the Appellant. In other
words, the Income Tax Authorities have levied Income Tax for the same
amount on two sources, viz., the Indian Bank and the Appellant.
(iii) That he does not want the entire documents requested for by him in para
_______above.
(iv) He wants only those portions of the documents which concern the income
of M/s. Chandrakala & Co.
(v) Shri Thyagarajan, Commissioner of Appeals, Chennai, had passed an
order in Appellant’s favour and the Income Tax Department had gone in
Appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
7. Advocate Ilam Bharati is requested to furnish the document, which he is willing
to do.
INTERIM ORDER
8. Shri Vivekanand, CIT, requested for filing detailed written submissions. His
request is allowed. Advocate Ilam Bharati also requested for filing detailed written
subkissions and also a copy of the order passed by Commissioner, Income Tax, Chennai,
in case of Jaychandra. His request is also allowed. The submissions may be filed within
next two weeks time. The matter is adjourned.
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. Das)
Assistant Registrar
667TJayaChandranITOChennai1811 11 4
Tele: 011-2616 26 62