TEP and RTI Tax Evasion Petition Judgment, Citation
Useful Judgment while filing the TEP
In-Laws should disclose source of income for the exorbitant claims in 498a and DV case
Regarding False dowry allegations, Interpretation of the statute by delhi High Court. PARTIES: SMT NEERA SINGH VS STATE OF DELHI, DELHI HC, COURT: DELHI HIGH COURT, Date of Order: on 23 February, 2007, BENCH: JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, AVAILABLE SOURCE:- http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1061764/ , http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/ :- Had given a landmark judgment that deals with the issue of Dowry allegations: “Now-a-days, exorbitant claims are made about the amount spent on marriage and other ceremonies and on dowry and gifts. In some cases claim is made of spending crores of rupees on dowry without disclosing the source of income and how funds flowed. I consider time has come that courts should insist upon disclosing source of such funds and verification of income from tax returns and police should insist upon the compliance of the Rules under Dowry Prohibition Act and should not entertain any complaint, if the rules have not been complied with. If huge cash amounts are alleged to be given at the time of marriage which are not accounted anywhere, such cash transactions should be brought to the notice of the Income Tax Department by the Court so that source of income is verified and the person is brought to law. It is only because the Courts are not insisting upon compliance with the relevant provisions of law while entertaining such complaints and action is taken merely on the statement of the complainant, without any verification that a large number of false complaints are pouring in.” ………… The Metropolitan Magistrates should take cognizance of the offence under the Act in respect of the offence of giving dowry whenever allegations are made that dowry was given as a consideration of marriage, after demand. Courts should also insist upon compliance with the rules framed under the Act and if rules are not complied with, an adverse inference should be drawn. If huge cash amounts are alleged to be given at the time of marriage which are not accounted anywhere, such cash transactions should be brought to the notice of the Income Tax Department by the Court so that source of income is verified and the person is brought to law. It is only because the Courts are not insisting upon compliance with the relevant provisions of law while entertaining such complaints and action is taken merely on the statement of the complainant, without any verification that a large number of false complaints are pouring in. ………. I consider that the kinds of vague allegations as made in the complaint by the petitioner against every member of the family of husband cannot be accepted by any court at their face value and the allegations have to be scrutinized carefully by the Court before framing charge. A perusal of the complaint of the petitioner would show that she made all kinds of false allegations against her husband regarding beating, forced to buy the CAR, abused her, taunted her, threatened. However, in her complaint, she made vague and omnibus allegations against every other family members.
Useful judgment whiling filing the TEP+RTI
TEP investigation and outcome must be provided to appellant
CIC:: File No.CIC/RM/A/2013/000635, Appellant: Shri Om Prakash Singh, New Delhi
DECISION:: It has been the consistent stand of the Commission that some sort of a feedback should be provided to the information provider once investigation into a tax evasion complaint has been finalized. The complainant has a right to know whether the information provided by him has been found to be false or true. We accordingly direct the CPIO to disclose the broad outcome of the TEP to the appellant once the enquiry is completed. Details of investigation are, however, not required to be disclosed.
http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_RM_A_2013_000635_M_121813.pdf
CPIO to disclose the broad outcome of the TEP to the appellant in 04 months time
CIC:: File No. CIC/LS/A/2009/001067 Appellant – Shri Manish Kumar, Date of Decision 04.03.2010
DECISION:: In view of the above discussion, the CPIO is hereby directed to disclose the broad outcome of the TEP to the appellant in 04 months time. It is, however, clarified that he need not disclose the details of investigation.
Judgment is available on dvhelp@yahoogroup.com
TEP investigation and outcome must be provided to the appellant in 03 months time and CPIO must provide the information under CrPC 91
CIC:: File No.CIC/LS/A/2009/001113 Appellant : Shri Chetan Anand Parashar, Date of Decision : 19.2.2010
DECISION :: 7. In view of the above discussion, the decisions of CPIO and AA in regard to non-disclosure of ITRs are upheld. Even so, the CPIO is directed to intimate the outcome of TEP to the appellant in 03 months time.
8. Before parting with the matter, we would like to mention that section 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure empowers a court or an officer in charge of a Police Station to seek production of any documents for the purpose of investigation, inquiry or trial etc, pending before such court or officer. It is open to the appellant to take resort to this provision, if he is so advised.
Judgment is available on dvhelp@yahoogroup.com
TEP investigation should not and infinitum and that it should be concluded in a reasonable time frame
CIC:: File No. CIC/LS/A/2009/001179 ( Appellant – Sh. Virag R. Dhulia ) /Date of decision – 18.02.2010
5. It is to be noted that investigation into a TEP cannot be allowed to go on ad-infinitum and that it should be concluded in a reasonable time frame whereafter the broad outcome thereof needs to be communicated to the appellant i.e. whether the allegations made in the TEP are fully true, partially true or untrue. No further information needs to be disclosed at this stage.
DECISION :: 6. In view of the above, Income Tax Officer, Ward 31(3), 10 – B.C., Middleton Row, Kolkata-700017, is hereby directed to complete the investigation in next three months time and intimate the broad outcome thereof, as indicated herein above, to the appellant in three months time.
Judgment is available on dvhelp@yahoogroup.com
Income tax department should provide the Father in Law Income tax detail
CIC :: Appeal : No. CIC/LS/A/2010/001044DS Appellant /Complainant : Sh. Manoj Kumar Saini, Jaipur Date of Decision : 24 March, 2011
18. We direct the CPIO to furnish the information pertaining to the net taxable income of Shri Munna Lal Saini, the fatherinlaw of the Appellant, for the period of year 2000 till 15.09.2009 (i.e. the date of the Appellant’s RTI Application) to the Appellant within 10 days.
Judgment is available on dvhelp@yahoogroup.com
TEP should finish within 3 months,
CIC :: File No.CIC/LS/A/2009/001113 Appellant : Shri Chetan Anand Parashar Date of Decision : 19.2.2010
held as follows :-
7.In view of the above discussion, the decisions of CPIO and AA in regard to non disclosure of ITRs are upheld. Even so, the CPIO is directed to intimate the outcome of TEP to the appellant in 03 months time.
In another decision dated 18.02.2010 in Virag R Dhulia Vs IT Department, Kolkatta File No.CIC/LS/A/2009/001179, the single Bench headed by the undersigned had held as follows :
“……………(6)In view of the above, Income Tax Office, Ward No.31(3), 20, BC Middleton Row, Kolkatta – 700017 is hereby directed to complete the investigation in next three months time and intimate the broad outcome thereof, as indicated herein above, to the appellant in three months time.
Judgment is available on dvhelp@yahoogroup.com
Similar judgement
1. Judgment from CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION in CIC/AT/A/2008/0268. Where Information Commissioner allows the similar petition TEP information allowed and cannot be said to be a personal matter of the tax evader not exempted under Sec 8(1) of the RTI Act.
2.Judgment from CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION in Wide Decision No.174/IC (A)/2006. Where Information Commissioner allows the similar petition TEP information and its outcomes should be disclosed not exempted under Sec 8(1) of the RTI Act.
3.Judgment from CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION inCIC/AT/A/2008/01389. Where Information Commissioner allows the similar petition RTI of dowry matter allowed and hereby directed to disclose the above mentioned not exempted under Sec 8(1) of the RTI Act.
4.Judgment from CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION inCIC/SG/C/2009/000702/4128. Where Information Commissioner where he defines the concept of privacy, fundamental right of the Complainant as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution.
5.Judgment from CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION inCIC/WB/A/2007/00064. Where Information Commissioner explains about the “sensitive personal data” means personal data consisting of information.
6.Judgment from CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION inCIC/LS/A/2010/001044DS. Where Information Commissioner allows the similar petition TEP information allowed related to dowry and not exempted under Sec 8(1) of the RTI Act.
7.Judgment from CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION inCIC/DS/A/2011/002918/RM. Where Information Commissioner allows the similar petition TEP information allowed related to dowry and not exempted under Sec 8(1) of the RTI Act.
8.Judgment from CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION inCIC/DS/A/2011/003358. Where Information Commissioner allows the similar petition of the IT Return allow in dowry case is not exempted under Sec 8(1) of the RTI Act.
9.Judgment from CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION inCIC/DS/A/2011/003359. Where Information Commissioner allows the similar petition TEP information allowed and not exempted under Sec 8(1) of the RTI Act.
UusefulJudgement
10 If CPIO disclose TEP info then doubt of black money will be removed from husband mind and this way the information will fulfill the objective of RTI to check the corruption as said by Hon’ble justice Shri Pradeep Kant (Allahabad High Court) in the recent judgment under Writ Petition No. 3262 (MB) of 2008, Public Information Officer Vs. State Information Commission, U.P. and others,
“….Our Constitution establishes a democratic republic. Democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning……..The purpose and object of the act is not only to provide information but to keep a check on corruption, and for that matter confers a right upon the citizens to have the necessary information,
11 .Honorable Central Information Commissioner Prof. M.M. Ansari Wide Decision F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00108.
The appellant has mentioned the reason, as above, for seeking information on the Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) filed by him against his wife. The aspects of strained human relations that may become the reason for seeking information is out of the purview of our mandate. However, the public actions, irrespective of the cause of such actions, and disclosure of its outcome, fall under the domain of RTI Act. The action taken on TEP has to be examined accordingly.
On the issue of progress report on TEP, it has been observed that:
“Investigations of the complaint on tax evasion by the IT department is a part of the process of identifying the offenders and assessing the extent of tax evasion by them. Until the nature of offence is duly examined and thoroughly investigated and necessary action is taken under the relevant provisions of tax laws, the disclosure of investigation report on tax evasion is barred u/s 8(1) (h).
Needless to say, the Department of Income Tax is expected to conduct investigations fairly and objectively, and that in a transparent manner, so that the relevant investigation report could be made public, soon after the taxes due from the offenders are recovered”. (Ref. Appeal No.34/IC(A)/06 dated 4th May 2006)
As the investigations on TEP have been conducted by DIT (Inv.), the relevant report is the outcome of public action, which needs to be disclosed. This, therefore, cannot be exempted u/s 8(1)(j) as interpreted by the appellate authority.
Accordingly, DIT (Investigation) is directed to disclose the report as per the provision u/s 10 (1) & (2), after the entire process of investigation and tax recovery,
if any, is complete in every respect.
12.Honorable Chief Information Commissioner Shri Shailesh Gandhi Wide Decision No. CIC/LS/A/2009/000647/SG/5887 dated 14-12-2009 in TEP / RTI matter where he defines the concept Section 8(1)(h) of the Act provides-
8. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,—
(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
Dr. Naresh Trehan, one of the third parties, and the Department have relied on this ground of exemption. Both parties have stated that as the process of assessment has not been finalized till date and Investigation is still underway, exemption under Section 8(1)(h) applies. But the mere fact that an investigation is underway and that assessment has not been finalized is not a sufficient ground for the application of Section 8(1)(h).
13 The High Court of Delhi has held in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP (C) No. 3114/2007 that-
“It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information” The PIO has contention that,
“Logically no investigation could be said to be complete unless it has reached a point where the final decision on the basis of that investigation is taken. In this context the progress of assessments are therefore exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h)”, only states that the investigation is not over. No claim has been made that the process of investigation would be impeded in any manner.
Neither party has been able to establish before the Commission how the disclosure of information to the Appellant would impede the process of investigation. Therefore, Section 8(1)(h) cannot be applied in the present case to claim exemption from disclosure of information.
The disclosure of the information would lead to unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
Certain human rights such as liberty, freedom of expression or right to life are universal and therefore would apply uniformly to all human-beings worldwide. However, the concept of ‘privacy’ is a cultural notion, related to social norms, and different societies would look at these differently. Therefore referring to laws of other countries to define ‘privacy’ cannot be considered a valid exercise to constrain the Citizen’s fundamental Right to Information in India. Parliament has not codified the right to privacy so far, hence in balancing the Right to Information of Citizens and the individual’s Right to Privacy the Citizen’s Right to Information would be given greater weightage.
14. Honorable Central Information Commissioner Prof. M.M. Ansari Wide Decision No.174/IC(A)/2006 in same kind of TEP/RTI matter :
Every action taken by public bodies or public servants and its outcome should be under the domain of public for open scrutiny. It follows that the proceedings initiated by the income-tax department, in pursuance of the tax evasions petition (TEP), and its outcomes should be disclosed, even without asking for such information by the petitioners.
As regards the disclosure of tax assessment orders passed by the assessing officers is concerned, such documents should also be disclosed provided that larger public interest such as containing corruption is served. In the present case, the appellant has not established as to what is the overriding public interest in disclosing the details of tax assessment orders which contains confidential business and financial transactions of the assessees. Unless the case of public interest is established, the disclosure of such information would tantamount to unwarranted invasion of privacy of assessees. Therefore, the decision of appellate authority is upheld. The CPIO is, however, directed to furnish the Action Taken Report on the TEP filed by the appellant. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
15. Honorable Information Commissioner Shri Sailesh Gandhi of CIC bearing his Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2009/000702/4128 dated 14-07-2009 where he defines the concept of privacy ,which may act as a guidance for every public information officer
This information is very important for the Complainant as he is facing a threat of arrest and needs the information to prove his innocence. Not granting such information clearly leads to violation of the fundamental right of the Complainant as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution. If The Complainant has more than one way of seeking remedy he has the freedom to opt for the way which is more convenient for him. No claim has been made by the PIO of any exemption under the RTI Act to deny the information. If a Public Authority has a procedure of disclosing certain information which can also be accessed by a Citizen using the Right to Information Act, it is the Citizen’s prerogative to decide which route he wishes to take. The existence of another method of accessing information cannot be a justification to deny the Citizen his freedom to exercise his fundamental right codified under the Right to Information Act. If the Parliament wanted to restrict this right, it would have been stated expressly in the Act. Nobody else has the right to constrain or limit the rights of the Sovereign Citizen. There is no provision in the Right to Information Act which restrains the Citizen’s right to use it if another route to access information has been offered. It is a Citizen’s right to use the most convenient and efficacious means available to him.
16. “In Peoples Union of Civil Liberties Vs. Union of India, however, in his judgment of 13.2.2003 Shri P.V. Reddy J. has ruled as follows :
“When there is a competition between the right to privacy of an individual and the right to information of the citizens, the former right has to be subordinated to the latter right as it serves larger public interest. The right to know about the candidate who intends to become a public figure and a representative of the people would not be effective and real if only truncated information of the assets and liabilities is given.”
17 That False Dowry cases are a matter of “larger public interest” and that the information relating to IT returns of in-laws be furnished to husband,
From the paragraph 14 of the attached CIC judgment (Appeal : No. CIC/LS/A/2010/001044DS)
14. The mandate of the RTI Act to disclose personal information under Section 8(1)(j) is even stricter since it appends the expression “larger” to “public interest”. Mere public interest will not suffice in the disclosure of personal information such as the IT Returns of an assessee unless the Applicant can prove that a “larger” public interest demands such disclosure. The expression “larger” cannot be defined or carved into a straight jacketed formula and neither can it be easily disposed of. If the Applicant incessantly stresses on the argument that false dowry cases are a matter of “larger public interest” and that the information relating to IT returns of his father in law be furnished to him, then an equally challenging rebuttal could be that the Income Tax Act, which defines the procedure of disclosure of such IT Returns to him, is a public policy which has been enacted by the State keeping in mind the larger good of the society. It is not the case of the Respondents that objection to disclosure of the documents is taken on the ground that it belongs to a class of documents which are protected irrespective of their contents, because there is no absolute immunity for documents belonging to such class.
18. That, husband fighting criminal cases against “State of Maharashtra”. The “State” is pursuing a criminal case against husband and that since “State” has decided to prosecute me because of legal fiction created under Section 405 of IPC, automatically a “larger public interest” is involved in the matter.
From the paragraph 13 of the attached CIC judgment (Appeal : No. CIC/LS/A/2010/001044DS)
13. It brings me to the second contention of the Appellant which revolves around the concept of “larger public interest”. According to the Appellant, the “State” is pursuing a criminal case against him and that since “State” has decided to prosecute him because of legal fiction created under Section 405 of IPC, automatically a “larger public interest” is involved in the matter. Section 405 of the IPC states that “Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits ‘criminal breach of trust’.” Dowry Cases invariably have the component of ‘Criminal Breach of Trust’ relating to misappropriation of property. In case, the State relies upon the fiction of misappropriation, then the other party should have a right to know the details of property reflected in IT Returns which is alleged to be misappropriated.
19. That, Section 6(2) of the Act clearly states that the Applicant shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information
From the paragraph 7 of the attached CIC judgment (Appeal : No. CIC/LS/A/2010/001044DS)
7. The conviction and thrust with which the Appellant had pursued his case and made his submission explaining the reasons for which he needs the information are plausible. But, however unfortunate as it may seem, the noise of motivation behind seeking the information falls upon deaf ears as far as the Act is concerned. Section 6(2) of the Act clearly states that the Applicant shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information. Thus, the Act does not aim to judge the motivation or the reason behind seeking certain information, as each applicant may have a different line of reasoning, each one being equally passionate and emotionally driven.
20 Please also read and honour the below judgment of the APEX court of India that has been given in the case of “Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar, in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1277 OF 2014 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.9127 of 2013)” On 2nd July 2014.
There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A of the IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. “Crime in India 2012 Statistics” published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under Indian Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal.
Check Important Link
mensrightactivist 