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 !!
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi – 110067
File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/000677/BS/8630
17 September 2015
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Dr. Sanjiv Mahajan
R/o – C-1-117, Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi – 110024
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
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.
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.
Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta)
Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer