ban on disclosing TEP results NOT beneficial to STATE REVENUES !! Central Inf. Commission to IT Department

Many times the IT department tries to avoid giving TEP results or conclusion of investigation to the applicant. This has a very dampening effect on the informant / applicant. It runs counter productive to the whole TEP concept, and maximizing tax revenues !!

If you are stuck in such a situation, mostly you would have to argue saying that disclosure of information is the the greater public good

However here is a case where the CIC is supporting disclosure from the state exchequesr’s point of view

In this classic order the Central Information commission has said “…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….” and added “…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 informations to the authorities and thereby enable them to curb tax evasion and enhance the state revenues. …..”

So, as per this order, disclosure of TEP results is NOT only for the sake of transparency or for the sake of right to information, wherein greater public good is involved, but disclosure of TEP results benefits state revenues and curbs tax evasion as well

This order should come to the aid of harassed husbands who have filed TEP while fighting false DOWRY cacses

************** case from RTI website ********************
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2009/01014

Appellant             :       Shri Brij Ballabh Singh

Public Authority      :       DGIT (Inv), Lucknow

Date of Hearing       :       1.1.2010

Date of Decision :            1.1.2010

FACTS :

The matter is called for hearing today dated 1.1.2010. The parties have not appeared before the Commission. Hence, it has been decided to dispose of the matter on the basis of material on record. By his letter of 29.10.2008, the appellant had requested for information about the action taken on the tax evasion complaint filed by him.

2. The CPIO had refused to disclose information on the ground that DGIT (Inv) is an exempted organisation u/s 24 of the RTI Act. It is, however, noticed that the CPIO had not given the name and designation of the first Appellate Authority before whom the first appeal could be filed. Nor had he mentioned the time frame within which the first appeal could be filed. Thus, it appears that CPIO did not discharge his mandate under sub section (8) of section 7 of the RTI Act.

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 informations 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.

DECISION

4. In view of the above, the matter is remanded to ITO (Inv) (HQ) (CPIO), O/o Director General of Income Tax (Inv), Lucknow, with the direction to provide particulars of the First Appellate Authority to the appellant. On receipt of this information or otherwise, the appellant may file first appeal before FAA who will decide the appeal in the light of foregoing observations of the Commission.

5. The order of the Commission may be complied with in 04 weeks time.

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. ITO (Inv) (HQ) (CPIO), O/o Director General of Income Tax (Inv), Aaykar Bhawan, 5, Ashok Marg, Lucknow-226001

2. Shri Brij Ballabh Singh Rajputana Uttar Tola, Maunath Bhanjan, Mau-275101
*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites . Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
******************************************************************

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s