Court: Central Information Commission
Dr.Mahesh Hasija vs Cbdt on 30 October, 2013
Broad Outcome of the TEP to be Provided to Appellant Once the Enquiry has been Completed
Vide RTI dt 1.4.13, appellant had sought information on 4 points relating to TEP dt 29.8.11 against Shri Jai Naryan Oberoi.
2 CPIO vide letter dt 5.4.13, denied the information (copy not enclosed).
3. An appeal was filed on 5.5.13.
4. AA vide order dt 10.6.13, observed that CPIO had provided a response to query no.1 and 2 while information relating to copies of ITRs was denied u/s 8(1)(d) and (j) and in respect of query no.4, appellant was informed that action was in progress as per the provisions of the IT Act. AA upheld the decision of the CPIO regarding copies of ITRs and disposed of the appeal.
5. Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard. Appellant referred to CIC decision no.CIC/RM/A/2012/000545/LS dt 12.6.13 wherein the Commission has directed the CPIO to disclose amount of net taxable income, holding it to be statistical information. Appellant further submitted that in respect of query no.4, he should be provided broad outcome of investigation into the TEP filed by him.
6. The Commission has been of the view that some sort of a feedback should be provided to the information provider once investigation into a tax evasion complaint has been finalised. 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 has been completed. Details of investigation are, however, not required to be disclosed.
7. Insofar as the request for details of income tax declared and income tax paid is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande has held such information to be personal and hence exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, unless larger public interest is involved. In the instant case, no such larger interest has been shown and hence denial of information is upheld.
The appeal is disposed of.