Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/001201-BJ. Case: S.L. Goel Vs CPIO & ITO, Ward-3(3). Central Information Commission

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case Number:Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/001201-BJ
Party Name:S.L. Goel Vs CPIO & ITO, Ward-3(3)
Counsel:For Appellant: S.L. Goel and For Respondents: D.S. Chauhan, ITO
Judges:Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner
Issue:Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 11, 8(1), 8(1)(d), 8(1)(j)
Judgement Date:April 19, 2017
Court:Central Information Commission

Court Information Central Information Commission Cases
Judgment Date 19-Apr-2017
Party Details S.L. Goel Vs CPIO & ITO, Ward-3(3)
Case No Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/001201-BJ
Judges Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner
Advocates For Appellant: S.L. Goel and For Respondents: D.S. Chauhan, ITO
Acts Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 11, 8(1), 8(1)(d), 8(1)(j)

Decision

Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner

Facts:

1. The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 4 points regarding copies of Income Tax Returns together with complete computation sheets and other documents for the AY 2006-2007 filed by certain individuals mentioned in the RTI application, copies of notices, if any, regarding scrutiny of the returns, for providing other information, evasion of Income Tax, etc issued to the above persons by the Income Tax Department, replies filed by the said persons and orders passed and issues related thereto.

2. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 05.01.2016 stated that the information sought by the Appellant related to third parties and notices u/s. 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 were issued to all three assesses vide letter dated 16.12.2015 who vide their letters dated 01.01.2016, 04.01.2016 and 30.12.2015 requested the Respondent to not provide information to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 05.02.2015 rejected the appeal on grounds of Appeal No. a, b, c, e, f and i. However, as regards point no d, the CPIO was directed to provide information regarding Income Tax Authorities to whom information of evasion of taxes can be given.

"HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. S.L. Goel (M: 9815044555) through VC;

Respondent: Mr. D.S. Chauhan, ITO Ward 3(3), Chandigarh (M: 9530703592) through VC;"

3. The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that the information sought by him was primarily pertaining to the evasion of Income Tax by the persons whose name had been mentioned in the RTI application. It was categorically asserted that he possessed a strong evidence to prove that there was a Tax Evasion carried out by these individuals that needs to be investigated thoroughly in the interest of the public exchequer. It was confirmed that he had received replies form the CPIO/FAA but argued that the information sought was necessarily to...

To continue reading

Request your trial