Daily Archives: March 21, 2016

Release broad outline of TEP investigation – CIC !! why IT departments can’t escape when men file TEP

An Appellant  ( probably a son in law ) seeks the results of TEP on one Mr Arjun Kumar (probably a father in law). The IT dept does NOT release the same and the appellant files a RTI and matter reaches CIC

CIC clearly states “It is expected that the AO will communicate to the appellant the broad outcome of the TEP proceedings, without divulging any details, after completion of the investigation. ….” !!

this should help many men fighting against unjust dowry claims by women !!


Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi – 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/000677/BS/8630
17 September 2015

Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant  :
Dr. Sanjiv Mahajan
R/o – C-1-117, Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi – 110024

Respondent :
CPIO / Income Tax Officer (Inv)(Hq)
Income Tax Department
Director of Income tax (Inv), Chandigarh,
Aayakar Bhawan, Sector – 2,
Panchkula – 134112
CPIO /Income Tax Officer
O/o Commissioner of Income Tax
Faridabad (Haryana)

RTI application filed on    :11/06/2013
PIO replied on            :08/07/2013
First appeal filed on         :10/08/2013
First Appellate Authority order    :11/09/2013
Second Appeal dated         :04/01/2014

Information sought: The appellant has sought the following information:-

1. Provide the certified copy of the investigations/assessments are initiated/made on the TEP application dated 23/12/2012 submitted be me.

2. Did Mr. Arjun Kumar Garg explained the source of expenditure amounting to Rs. 20 Lacs on the marriage of his daughter Mr. Reena Garg during the course of enquiry made by the office of CIT? Any other information submitted by him on the source of the above expenditure?

3. Provide certified copy of observation was made by the CIT while recommending the re-opening of the assessment of Mr. XYZ for the Assessment Years (2005-2012) along with copy of the order?

4. Provide certified copy of explanation was offered by Mr. Arjun Kumar Garg about the source of above of   above   said   expenditure   amounting   to   Rs   60-70   lacs   during   the   course   of   re-assessment proceedings before the Income Tax Officer?

5. Provide certified copy of How much income has been re-assessed in the assessment order of Mr. Arjun Kumar Garg as income from un-disclosed sources and the copy of Asst. Order for the last Asst. year 2004-2005.

6. How much Income Tax demand including interest has been created as per notice of demand and also supply the copy of the notice of demand?

7. How much outstanding Income Tax demand has been recovered from Mr. Arjun Kumar Garg?

8. What action has been taken for the recovery of outstanding demand from assessed Mr. Arjun Kumar Garg?

9. Is there any stay order against outstanding Income Tax demand? Copy of the stay order, if any may be supplied.

10. What is the final stage of Income Tax Case of Mr. Arjun Kumar Garg the Asst. Year 2004-2005?

11. Smt. Reena Garg & Sh. Arjun Kumar Garg ever filed any income tax return mentioning the details of source of alleged money and alleged costly items ever given by them in marriagr and after marriage of their daughter as admitted in writing in their list submitted with TEP and also for maintaining other luxuries of life.

12. Whether they have paid income tax and wealth tax on there alleged cash/jewelry expenses.

13. Whether the person mentioned above are liable for any action against them for tax evasion (income tax, wealth tax, etc) as per rule and give the brief details of recovery efforts/punishments that can be awarded for violating the rule in above cases.

14. Intimate the action initiated/taken by your department against the person mentioned above and the amount of Tax recovered/expected to be recovered from them.

15. Provide a copy of the preliminary assessments/investigations.

16. Has Mr. Arjun Kumar Garg preferred any appeal against Asst. Order? What is the status of the appeal and till what time could its disposal be expected?

17. Provide the name and designation of the officer who is providing this information as there is every apprehension that the information being provided to me will not be relevant and will be misleading.

Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has not provided the desired information.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present

Appellant:  Dr. Sanjiv Mahajan

Respondent:  Mr. Suresh Kumar CPIO through VC

The appellant stated that he has not received the information sought in his RTI application dated 11/06/2013. The CPIO stated that DGIT (Investigation) is an exempt organization under Section 24 of the RTI Act. He informed that the appellant’s TEP was classified under ‘Z’ category and has been transferred to the CIT Faridabad.

Decision notice:

This Commission in its order dated 18/06/2013 (File No. CIC/RM/A/2012/000926 Sh. Ved Prakash Doda v/s ITO) has held as under:

“6. It has been the stand of the Commission that in respect of a tax evasion petition, once the investigation is completed, the appellant should be informed the broad results of the investigation, without disclosing any details. The appellant has a right to know as to whether the information provided by him was found to be true or false.

7. The Commission accordingly directs the CPIO to provide to the appellant, if investigation has been completed, the broad outcome of the investigation, without divulging any details, within ten days from date of receipt of the order.”

In the matter at hand the TEP has been transferred to the CIT Faridabad. It is expected that the AO will communicate to the appellant the broad outcome of the TEP proceedings, without divulging any details, after completion of the investigation.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy:

(R. L. Gupta)
Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer

Quash Sec 125 CrPC case when a civil (divorce) case is already pending ! Madras HC (old case)

A classic case where the Madras HC quashes a Sec 125 case filed by the wife three years after desertion and AFTER  a civil (divorce) case is also pending between the couple

the court clearly states that Sec 125 CrPc is for quick and expeditious relief, when there is NO other relief in sight. So it is NOT proper for the wife to run to a magistrate court and seek relief under sec 125 when a civil case (for divorce and other reliefs) is already proceeding / pending !

We are NOT sure IF this will help all situations, but we feel this should help some husbands in a very similar situation (at least the ratio used in the case is very strong)

Madras High Court

G. Ramanathan vs Revathy on 16 March, 1989

Bench: D Annoussamy


  1. This is a petition by the husband under S. 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings for maintenance instituted by the wife respondent under section 125 Cr.P.C.
  2. The case put forth by the husband is that the petition was filed before the Magistrate’s Court three years after the alleged desertion and therefore there was no emergency as alleged in order to invoke the quick remedy contemplated under section 125 Cr.P.C. He further stated that a divorce proceedings was already pending before the competent civil Court viz., S.P. No. 97 of 1984 and that it was open to the respondent to claim maintenance before that Court under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
  3. The learned counsel appearing for the wife contended before me that the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C. and the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act are two independent proceedings and therefore even during the pendency of a proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act it was open to the concerned person to seize the Magistrate. The scheme contemplated under Chap. IX of the Cr.P.C. is one meant to meet emergent situations which the civil Courts cannot decide immediately, and which would cause disorder in the society. That is why it is made part of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Secondly such a provision was introduced for the first time (a) when there was not a complete network of civil Courts all over the country and (b) when the law regarding maintenance was still at a nebulous stage. Now there is a full-fledged law of maintenance, and also a full-fledged law regarding marriage and divorce. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act contemplates maintenance pendente lite and S. 25 of the Act contemplates the grant of maintenance at the time of the decree or even at any time subsequent thereto on application by the concerned person.
  4. When a competent Civil Court has already (sic) of the matter and when it is possible without incurring any expenditure or any other inconvenience to approach, by way of a simple petition, the Civil Court so as to obtain maintenance, it is not proper on the part of the wife to go before the Magistrate for an order. The proper course is to approach the Civil Court which is already seized. Further under S. 127 of the Cr.P.C. if an order regarding maintenance is passed by the competent Civil Court, the Magistrate should have to set aside its own order which is more in the nature of a temporary measure made after a summary hearing to meet an emergent situation. Therefore the fact of seizing the Magistrate when the competent Civil Court has been already seized would cause only judicial waste of time since the order obtained is ultimately liable to be cancelled. I therefore come to the conclusion that the institution of a proceeding under S. 125, Cr.P.C. when a civil proceeding is already pending between the parties under the Hindu Marriage Act is against the scheme of law contemplated under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Chap. IX of the Cr.P.C.
  5. In the result, the Cr. Misc. Petition is allowed and the proceedings in M.C. No. 5 of 1985 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sankaridurg are quashed
  6. Petition allowed.