{"id":138562,"date":"2010-06-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cbdt-on-22-june-2010"},"modified":"2017-06-01T06:10:52","modified_gmt":"2017-06-01T00:40:52","slug":"mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cbdt-on-22-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cbdt-on-22-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Cbdt on 22 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Cbdt on 22 June, 2010<\/div>\n
                   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                Appeal No. CIC\/LS\/A\/2010\/000377 dated 12.4.2010\n                 Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\n\nAppellant      -       Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta\nRespondent         -   Income Tax Department\n                         Decision announced: 21.6.2010\n\n\nFacts:\n         By an application of 26.11.08 Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta of Shalimar\nBagh, Ring Road, New Delhi applied to the PIO, Office of Chief Commissioner of\nIncome Tax, Central Delhi seeking the following information:\n        \"1-A. Kindly provide the copies of letter written by juniors officers\n               to CCIT (concerned with above assessee) on the complaint\n               of Applicant (Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta) about non payment\n               of reward and helping the tax evaders by way of not taking\n               timely action.\nB.             Kindly also provide the inspection of files \/ records dealing\nwith correspondence with the junior authorities of CCIT officers as\nmentioned in point 1(A) and the complaint of applicant (Mr. Rakesh Kumar\nGupta) about non payment of reward and helping the tax evaders by way\nof not taking timely action.\nC.             Kindly provide the file number for point 1(B) and whose\npossession \/ department, these files are kept.\nD.             Kindly provide copy of file noting of the file referred in point\nnumber 1(b).\nE.             Kindly provide copies of documents requested at the time of\ninspection of the file referred in point number 1(b).\n        2-A Kindly provide the copies of letter written by CCIT's\n               (concerned with above assessee - including other officers\n               related to assessee listed above) to CBDT on the complaint\n               of Applicant (Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta) about non-payment\n               of reward and helping the tax evaders by way of not taking\n               timely action.\nB.             Kindly also provide the inspection of files\/records dealing\nwith correspondence with the superior \/ CBDT \/ junior authorities (of CCIT\nofficers as mentioned in Point 2(A) and the complaint of Applicant (Mr.\nRakesh Kumar Gupta) about non payment of reward and helping the tax\nevaders by way of not taking timely actions.\nC.             Kindly provide the file number for point 2(B) and whose\npossession \/ department, these files are kept.\n\n\n\n                                          1\n D.            Kindly provide copy of file noting of the file referred in point\nnumber 2(b).\nE.            Kindly provide copies of documents requested at the time of\ninspection of the file referred in point number 2(b).\"\n\n       To this Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta received a response dated 24.12.09\nfrom CPIO, Shri V. K. Chopra, Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, HQ informing\nhim, as follows:\na)             \"Para 3 is of general nature and is a matter of record.\nb)             As regards Para 1(A) & 1(C), seven folders are maintained\nin the office of CCIT (Central) New Delhi. These files are in the custody of\nACIT \/ ITO (Hqrs.), O\/o the CCIT (Central) New Delhi.\nc)             As regards Para 1(B), as per the decision of the CIC, Club\nBuilding, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi in the case of Shri Rakesh Kumar\nGupta vs. Public Information Officer, C\/o Commissioner of Income Tax\n(Central)-2, New Delhi,<\/a> you are requested to attend office of the\nundersigned for inspection of files \/ records on 15.1.2010 at 11.30 a.m.\nand copies of the relevant documents \/ file notings as asked for in Para\n1(B) & 1(D) will be provided on payment of statutory fee.\nd)             As regards Para 2(A), 2(B), 2(C) & 2(D), the reply to these\nquestions has already been given while answering question to Para 1(A),\n1(B), 1(C) & 1(D). All the letters received from junior officers and written\nto senior officers, if any, are part and parcel of the above folders and\ncopies of them will be provided after inspection of records on 15.1.10 on\npaying statutory fees.\ne)             As regards Para 1(E) & 2(E), the same are not applicable at\npresent.\"\n\n       Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta then went in appeal before the Chief\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Central Delhi, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi\npleading as follows:\n1.          \"The appellant's appeals are identical.\n2.          The information was being sought under preamble to the RTI\nAct and CPIO has to prove that public interest in denial is stronger.\n\n3.           Relied upon order of the CIC in the case of Shri R. K. Gupta\nvs. Addl. DIT (Vigilance) copy of which has been annexed alongwith\nsubmissions.\n4.           The CIC order dated 14.12.09 has been accepted by the\ndepartment.\n5.           CIC has held in the order dated 30.10.09 in the case of Shri\nR. K. Gupta vs. Addl. Director of Income Tax (Vigilance) that Section 8(1)\n\n\n\n                                         2\n (h) of the RTI Act would only apply if the investigation is under way and\nthe disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation.\nNo explanation has been given by the CPIO which would show that\nprocess of investigation would be impeded.\"\n\n       In his order of 24.12.09, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax ordered\nas follows:\n       \"1. The contention of the respondent that the order of the CIC\n           dated 14.12.09 become final and the department has accepted\n           the same is not correct as the department has filed writ petition\n           before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court against the order of the\n           CIC on 281.10 which has been fixed for hearing along with the\n           writ petitions of the other third parties M\/s Escorts Ltd. & Ors.\n           on 15.3.10. Hence, the matter has become sub-judiced.\n       2. The appellant too have pointed out that the matter is sub judiced\n           and is pending for adjudication before Hon'ble Delhi High Court\n           and, therefore, no information should be provided. I agree with\n           the aforesaid plea of the appellants and hold that no\n           information should be provided to the respondent till the matter\n           is decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.\n       3. The issues raised by the appellant regarding the merits of the\n           case for not providing information to the respondent, would be\n           decided only after the receipt of the order of the Hon'ble Delhi\n           High Court.\"\n\n       The CPIO's arguments before Appellate Authority in this case were as\nfollows:\n       \"It was informed by the CPIO in the order dated 15.1.10 that the\n       appellants have objected to the inspection of documents as\n       required by him on the following grounds:\n(i)                      The correspondence with senior officers regarding\nthe reward claim by Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta in the case of Escorts Ltd.\nin a hierarchical relationship is in nature of a fiduciary entrustment and it\nshould not ordinarily be disclosed as the same is exempt within the\nmeaning of Sec. 8(1) (e).\n(ii)                     The confidential information forwarded to the\nhigher authorities should remain confidential, in public interest. Section\n8(2) of the Act stipulates that notwithstanding anything in Official Secrets\nAct, 1923 or any of the exemptions permissible under Section 8(1), a\npublic authority may allow access to information, if the public interest in\ndisclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. The information\nsought by the respondent is for his own interest (of obtaining the reward\n\n\n\n\n                                         3\n from the department on the basis of assessments completed) and the\ninformation used therein was already with the department.\n(iii)                    The CIC's decision No. 640 dated 14.12.10 on\nsimilar request of the respondent to provide inspection of files \/ records is\nnot accepted by the department and is being challenged through Writ\nPetition before Hon'ble High Court, Delhi by the ACIT, Central Circle-3,\nNew Delhi.\n(iv)                     In respect of Dr. Naresh Trehan, the Hon'ble High\nCourt Delhi has passed interim order to stay the impugned order dated\n22.12.09 vide Order dated WP\u00a9 No. 85 of 2010 dated 8.1.10.\n(v)                      The CPIO's decision communicated vide F. No.\nCCIT\/Central\/2009-10\/1828 dated 11.1.2010 is against the public interest.\nDisclosing and providing inspection of the records in the light of pending\nWrit Petition before Hon'ble High Court, Delhi is highly objectionable.\"\n\n\n\n       Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta's prayer in his second appeal before us is:\n       '1.    Issue direction to give the information.\n       2.     Penalize under section 20 for delay in providing\n              information and rejecting inspection on false pretext.\n       3.     Direct Public Authority to maintained records as\n              directed under section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.\n       4.     Any additional payer as Respected Commissioner found\n              deem fit like compensation etc.\"\n\n        The appeal was heard on 4.6.2010. The following are present:\n       Appellant\n             Shri Rakesh K. Gupta\n       Respondents\n             Shri Sunil Chopra, Chief Commissioner of IT Central\n             Shri Arun S. Bhatnagar, CIT(C-II), New Delhi.\n             Shri P. Ray Chaudhuri, Advocate\n             Shri V. M. Mahidhar, ACIT, CC-3, New Delhi.\n             Shri I. P. Bansal, Judicial Member, ITAT\n             Shri V S. Dhanda, ITO HQ (Exemptions)\n\n       Shri Sunil Chopra, CCIT submitted that the case is before the High Court\nof Delhi and has been stayed. The points in that case are the same, which\namounted to an appeal against the order of the Appellate Authority on the\nrequest of the third party. In response Shri Rakesh Gupta contended that the\ncase before the High Court, a copy of which is with us, is regarding disclosure of\n\n\n\n                                         4\n tax returns. The stay in this case is till 21.7.2010. In the present case, however,\nShri Gupta contended that he has not sought tax returns but the action taken on\nhis request regarding non-payment of reward and helping alleged tax evaders by\nnot taking timely action. Therefore, what he has sought is the internal\ncorrespondence in the CCIT's Office, which, in his view has resulted in this\nconsequence.     A copy of the decision of this Commission in appeal No.\nCIC\/LS\/A\/2009\/000647, which has been stayed by the High Court, was also\npresented by Chief Commr. of Income Tax. In that decision of 14.12.09, this\nCommission has held as follows:\n      \"The Commission concludes that no case has been made showing\n      that any of the exemption clauses apply to the information sought\n      by the appellant. The onus to prove that a denial of information was\n      justified is on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act. Though it\n      is not necessary, the appellant has also shown that a larger public\n      interest of increasing public revenue and reducing corruption may\n      be served by disclosure of the information, which would outweigh\n      any harm to any protected interest.\n\n      The Appeal is allowed.\n\n      The PIO is directed to provide the inspection of the records and\n      also the other information sought by the appellant before 15\n      January 2009. The Respondent is further directed to send a copy of\n      this order to the Third parties immediately.\"\n\n      In this case the information sought by appellant Shri Rakesh Gupta was,\nas below:\n      \"All records available with the income tax department including\n      assessment records of all the levels with regard to:\n      1 1. Escorts Limited AY (1998-99 to 2005-2006)\n      2 2. Mr. Rajan Nanda AY (1998-99 to 2005-2006)\n      3 3. Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Chandigarh\n          (Society) AY (2001-2002)\n      4 4. Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Delhi (Society) AY\n          (1998-99 to 2001-2002)\n      5 5. Dr. Naresh Trehan AY (1998-99 to 2005-2006)\n      6 6. Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Limited\n          Chandigarh AY (2000-2001 to 2005-2006)\n      7 7. Big Apple Clothing (P) Limited AY (1998-99 to 2005-2006)\n      8 8. AAA Portfolio (P) Limited (1998-99 to 2005-2006)\n\n\n\n                                        5\n       Required:\n      1 1. Inspection of all records in above respect.\n      2 2. Kindly provide the copies of documents mentioned at the time\n        of inspection.\n      3 3. Kindly provide the officers (from assessing officers to CCIT),\n        who are the officers to take action on \"Tax Evasion Petition\"\n        given by me from 01\/08\/2008 till date.\n\n      In this matter, the CCIT also presented copies of the order of the High\nCourt of Delhi on various WPs, namely WP( C) No. 202\/2010, WP( C) No.\n206\/2010, WP( C) No. 207\/2010, WP( C) No. 214\/2010, WP( C) No. 251\/2010 in\nwhich by order of 15.3.2010, Hon'ble S. Murlidhar J. has ordered as follows:\n      \"1.    Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent states that\n             he needs two weeks time to file a reply.\n             Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks.\n             Thereafter,\n      2.     List on 21st July, 2010\n      3.     Interim orders to continue\"\n\n      In the case before us we have also received written arguments by e-mail\nfrom appellant Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, in which he has submitted as follows:\n      1. Nothing is said by the opposite parties the effect on Government\n         revenue due to delay tactics in providing information, which\n         should be given to the applicant under Section 4 (1) c & d of RTI\n         act. (about the action \/ inaction on Applicant's complaint.) AND\n         the public interest involved in the case.\n      2. My case is covered fully Under the Bhagat Singh (better known\n         as DGIT Vs CIC Delhi High Court decision.) case approved up\n         to the Supreme Court of India. As per this order denial should\n         be strictly as per Section 8(1)\/9 of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore,\n         more likely objection raised by the opposite party to deny the\n         information is Section 8(1) (b) of the RTI Act, 2005.\n      Basic Rules framed for interpreting the RTI Exemption by the\n      Delhi High Court in the Bhagat Singh case\n      (WP(C) No.3114\/2007 Date of decision: December 03, 2007\n      BHAGAT SINGH (Petitioner) Versus CHIEF INFORMATION\n      COMMISSIONER and ORS. Central Information Commission File\n      Ref: Appeal No.35\/IC (A)\/06- F. No.CIC\/MA\/A\/2006\/00108 Dated,\n      the 8th May, 2006) to while applying the exemption clause.\n      Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, J.\n<\/pre>\n
      Rule 1: As is reflected in its preambular paragraphs, the enactment
\n             seeks to promote transparency, arrest corruption and to hold<\/p>\n
                                        6<\/span>
\n       the Government and its instrumentalities accountable to the
\n      governed. This spirit of the Act must be borne in mind while
\n      construing the provisions contained therein.
\n(From Para 12 Page 6 of the order)
\nRule 2: Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the
\n      rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section
\n      8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore
\n      is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in
\n      manner as to shadow the very right itself.\n<\/p>\n
 (From Para 13 Page 6 of the order)
\nRule 3: A rights based enactment is akin to a welfare measure, like
\n      the Act, should receive a liberal interpretation. The
\n      contextual background and history of the Act is such that the
\n      exemptions, outlined in Section 8, relieving the
\n      authorities from the obligation to provide information,
\n      constitute restrictions on the exercise of the rights provided
\n      by it. Therefore, such exemption provisions have to be
\n      construed in their terms…\n<\/p>\n
Adopting a different approach would result in narrowing the rights
\nand approving a judicially mandated class of restriction on the
\nrights under the Act, which is unwarranted.\n<\/p>\n
 (From Para 14 Page 6 of the order)<\/p>\n
3. on this argument(stay by the Court) , there is direct High Court
\n  decision that directed that information should be given even after
\n  stay on information giving by the Supreme Court of India. Full
\n  copy of decision is available on CIC website under the heading
\n  High Court decisions. Direct Decision of CIC and the High
\n  Court in favour of Applicant. In The High Court Of Punjab and
\n  Haryana at Chandigarh C.R. No. 1051 of 2001. – Date of
\n  Decision: 29.1.2006. Punjab Public Service Commission.
\n  Versus Rajiv Kumar Goyal.) in favour of applicant. This appeal
\n  is pending with Central Information Commission to decide the
\n  matter.\n<\/p>\n
4. Relevant portion of the decision is
\nBrief Facts of the case.\n<\/p>\n
Applicant applied inspection and copies of record as per
\nprovisions of Order 11 Rule 14 CPC, was allowed by court.
\nPublic Authority obtains the stay order from Supreme Court of India
\non the decision to allow inspection and copies.
\nWhen the Applicant applied under the RTI Act, 2005 Public
\nAuthority opposes the same as information is exempted under
\nSection 8(1) (b) of RTI Act, 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
       Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the information even after
\n      the stay order of the Supreme Court on disclosure of information as
\n      per provisions of Order 11 Rule 14 CPC<\/p>\n
      With this, appellant has attached a copy of the order of the High Court of
\nPunjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CR No. 1051\/2006 dated 21.9.06 – Punjab
\nPublic Service Commission vs. Rajiv Kumar Goyal, in which learned Hemant
\nGupta J. has come to the following conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
      “A perusal of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
\n      would show that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed operation
\n      of the aforesaid orders of this Court permitting inspection but there
\n      is no order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which prohibits the
\n      Commission to furnish information under the Act. Consequently,
\n      there is no exemption available to the petitioner in terms of Section
\n      8(1) (b) of the Act. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in
\n      the revision petition. Hence the present revision petition is
\n      dismissed. However, it is directed that the information sought by
\n      the plaintiff vide Annexure P.4 except documents at Serial No. 8
\n      thereof, be supplied to the plaintiff in terms of the provisions of the
\n      Act on soliciting the necessary fee in terms of the Act. The amount
\n      of fee shall be communicated to the plaintiff within one month from
\n      today.”<\/p>\n
                              DECISION NOTICE
\n      The gist of this case lies in appellant Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta seeking
\ninformation on why his complaint regarding non-payment of reward, when in his
\nview he has identified tax evaders, has not been acted upon. His argument has
\nbeen that what stands stayed by the Hon’ble High Court is not the information
\nthat he has sought. Copy of the Stay which has been issued by High Court of
\nDelhi in WP( C) No. 2022\/2010 – Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre
\nvs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta W.P.( C) No. 206\/2010 Escorts Heart Institute vs.
\nR. K. Gupta, W.P.(C ) No. 207\/2010 Rajan Nanda vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta,
\nW.P.( C) No. 251\/2010 Portfolio P. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta has
\nindeed been stayed, as quoted by us above. The decision, which is stayed is
\nthat of this Commission in CIC\/LS\/A\/2009\/000647 in which the information
\nsought was, as quoted at length above, inspection of records available with the
\nIncome Tax Department regarding various organizations that are in appeal and<\/p>\n
                                        8<\/span>
\n have received the stay. In that case, by the decision of this Commission of
\n14.12.09, the PIO had been directed to provide the inspection of these records.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In the present case, the only inspection that has been sought is that of files and
\nrecords of correspondence among officers dealing with the complaint of Shri
\nRakesh Kumar Gupta, appellant. This request then has, therefore, little to do
\nwith the appeal before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The order of the Chief
\nCommissioner of Income Tax in the present case has relied wholly on the Writs
\nbefore the High Court, which stayed the order of 14.12.09. In the present case
\nwhat has been argued is that correspondence with Senior Officers regarding the
\nreward claimed by Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta is part of a hierarchical relationship
\nand is, therefore, exempt u\/s 8(1)(e).\n<\/p>\n
       On this matter, we have a definitive ruling regarding the application of sec.
\n8(1)(e) in the decision of Hon’ble Ravindra Bhat, J. in W.P. (Civil) No. 288\/2009\n<\/p>\n
– Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agrawal. This decision has
\nalso been relied upon in subsequent decisions of the Delhi High Court. In his
\njudgment in WP(C) 228\/2009, CPO Supreme Court of India vs. SC Agrawal &
\nAnr.   Ravindra Bhat J has discussed the concept of fiduciary relationship in
\nsome detail. The HC ruling in the above case is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
       “54. The petitioners argue that assuming that asset declarations, in
\n       terms of the 1997 constitute “information” under the Act, yet they
\n       cannot be disclosed – or even particulars about whether, and who
\n       made such declarations, cannot be disclosed – as it would entail
\n       breach of a fiduciary duty by the CJI. The petitioners rely on
\n       Section 8 (1) (f) to submit that a public authority is under no
\n       obligation to furnish “information available to a person in his
\n       fiduciary relationship”. The petitioners emphasize that the 1997
\n       Resolution crucially states that:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              “The declaration made by the Judges or the Chief Justice,
\n              as the case may be, shall be confidential.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       The respondent, and interveners, counter the submission and say
\n       that CJI does not stand in the position of a fiduciary to the judges of
\n       the Supreme Court, who occupy high Constitutional office; they
\n       enjoy the same judicial powers, and immunities and that the CJI
\n       cannot exercise any kind of control over them. In these\n      <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Cbdt on 22 June, 2010 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC\/LS\/A\/2010\/000377 dated 12.4.2010 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant – Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta Respondent – Income Tax Department Decision announced: 21.6.2010 Facts: By an application of 26.11.08 Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta of Shalimar Bagh, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-138562","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Cbdt on 22 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cbdt-on-22-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Cbdt on 22 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cbdt-on-22-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-01T00:40:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cbdt-on-22-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cbdt-on-22-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Cbdt on 22 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-01T00:40:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cbdt-on-22-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1176,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cbdt-on-22-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cbdt-on-22-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cbdt-on-22-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Mr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Cbdt on 22 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-01T00:40:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cbdt-on-22-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cbdt-on-22-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cbdt-on-22-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Cbdt on 22 June, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Cbdt on 22 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cbdt-on-22-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Cbdt on 22 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cbdt-on-22-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-01T00:40:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cbdt-on-22-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cbdt-on-22-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Cbdt on 22 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-01T00:40:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cbdt-on-22-june-2010"},"wordCount":1176,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cbdt-on-22-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cbdt-on-22-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cbdt-on-22-june-2010","name":"Mr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Cbdt on 22 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-01T00:40:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cbdt-on-22-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cbdt-on-22-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cbdt-on-22-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Cbdt on 22 June, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138562","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=138562"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138562\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138562"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138562"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138562"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}