Information regarding IT assessment proceedings of M/s Ahura Holdings - PIO denied citing the SC order in GR Deshpande case - CIC: being a partner, the appellant is entitled to know the basis of which tax liability has been imposed on him
3 Nov, 2013Information regarding IT assessment proceedings of M/s Ahura Holdings - PIO denied citing the SC order in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande - CIC: being a partner of M/s Ahura Holdings, the appellant is entitled for information on the basis of which tax liability has been imposed on him in the wake of the search and seizure operations
FACTS
1. Vide RTI dt 24.7.12, appellant had sought information on 16 points relating to Shri Gopal Lal Badruka and Shri Avadesh Badruka, in regard to assessment proceedings of M/s Ahura Holdings.
2. CPIO vide letter dt 31.8.12, observed that as the information pertained to third party a letter was issued to them. Both the assesses objected to any information being furnished. CPIO further observed that most of the information sought is not available with him and as the appellant has not given any reasons for seeking the information, it is not known whether any public interest is involved or not. Accordingly, the information was denied.
3. An appeal was filed on 28.9.12.
4. AA vide order dt 2.11.12, observed that information sought in points no.1 is maintained in the office of DGIT (Inv), Hyderabad and hence cannot be provided. As regards points 1-9 and 11-16, the same was transferred to the Asstt. Commissioner, IT, Circle- 7(1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: , Hyderabad. Insofar as query no.10 is concerned, the same was denied as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande. Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of.
5. Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard. Shri Bam submitted that his client and Shri Gopal Lal Badruka are partners in Ahura Holdings. In the wake of search and seizure operations at the residence of Shri Gopal Lal Badruka, a tax liability has been created against Ahura Holdings and recovery proceedings initiated for Rs. 5,80,00,000. The Assessment order dated 29.12.2008 acknowledges the fact that the appellant is a partner in the firm. This being the case, appellant submitted that information sought by him should be provided to enable him to defend himself.
6. The Commission finds that the RTI (points 1-9 and 11-16) had been transferred to Asstt Commissioner, IT Circle 7(1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: , Hyderabad. As there is no response available on record from Circle 7(1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: , a fresh notice for hearing be issued to all the parties, including ACIT, Circle 7(1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: .
(Rajiv Mathur)
Central Information Commissioner
8.10.2013
Appellant is represented by Shri Kantilal Bam. The Public Authority is represented by Shri KC Das, Dy Commissioner, IT, Circle 6(1) and Ms Satya, ACIT Circle 7(1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: , Hyderabad.
7. Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard. Shri KC Das submitted that the documents with ACIT Circle 7(1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: have since been transferred back to ITO 6(3). Appellant submitted that he has been allowed inspection of the concerned records as also copies of some of the documents. However, information in respect of point no. 11-16, and in respect of point no.10, information relating to AY 2004-05 and 2005-06 has not been provided.
DECISION
8. The Commission observes that the appellant, being a partner of M/s Ahura Holdings is entitled for information on the basis of which tax liability has been imposed on him in the wake of the search and seizure operations. We direct CPIO to provide the balance of information as mentioned in para 5 above to the appellant within ten days as per provisions of the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of.
(Rajiv Mathur)
Central Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Bimal Kumar Poddar v. ITO in File No. CIC/RM/A/2013/000134