The complete denial of information under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act is inappropriate when the appellant is entitled to know the outcome of a Tax Evasion Petition, emphasizing public interest.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 24(1) - Exemption of intelligence and security organizations from RTI - The appellant sought information regarding a Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) against an individual, which was denied by the CPIO citing exemption under Section 24(1) - The Commission found the complete denial of information inappropriate and directed the CPIO to inform the broad outcome of the TEP to the appellant. (Paras 1, 4, 5, 6)

(B) Public Interest - The appellant argued that the information sought was in larger public interest, as it pertains to government revenue and rewards for informers - The Commission acknowledged the appellant's entitlement to information regarding the TEP outcome and potential rewards. (Paras 1, 2, 3)

(C) Conduct of Respondent - The Commission admonished the respondent for absence during the hearing, indicating potential future action for non-compliance. (Paras 1, 2, 3)

Facts of the case:
The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information on the outcome of a TEP against an individual, which was denied by the CPIO based on the exemption under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. The appellant filed a first appeal, which was upheld, leading to a second appeal before the Commission.

Findings of Court:
The Commission directed the CPIO to provide the broad outcome of the TEP to the appellant within four weeks, while ensuring compliance with the RTI Act's exemptions.

Issues: The main issues included the applicability of Section 24(1) of the RTI Act to the information sought and the appellant's entitlement to know the outcome of the TEP.

Ratio Decidendi: The Commission ruled that the complete denial of information was inappropriate, emphasizing the appellant's rights as an informer and the public interest in the matter.

Result: The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application (offline) dated 09.09.2022 seeking the following information:

“The undersigned had filed Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) against S. Sukhdev Singh Katyal R/o "********, New Delhi - 110058" in Sep'2010. In context of the same, the undersigned would request following information as per RTI Act 2005:

1. Kindly provide the final outcome of TEP filed against 'Sukhdev Singh Kaywal'.

2. Kindly provide the amount of tax evasion amount as demand recovery imposed upon S. Sukhdev Singh Katyal.

3. Kindly provide the penalty amount imposed upon Sukhdev Singh Katyal.

4. Kindly provide what amount of tax been deposited by S. Sukhdev Singh Katyal in your good office as imposed upon him, as per filed TEP against him.

5. Kindly provide what amount of penalty amount been deposited by S. Sukhdev Singh Katyal in your good office as imposed upon him, as per filed TEP against him.

6. Kindly intimate via which mode (draft/cash/etc) S. Sukhdev Singh Katyal made the recovery demand and penalty payment in income tax good office as imposed upon him, as per filed TEP against him.

7. Kindly share the FAA name and address, would be needed to go for appeal if not satisfied with this RTI responses.”

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 26.10.2022 stating as under:

“1. The Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by Sub- Section (2) of Section 24 of Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005) has by notification dated 27.03.2008, placed the office of the DGIT (Inv.) in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005, as an intelligence and security organization excluded from the purview of the RTI Act. Therefore, this office is exempt from the operation of the RTI Act subject to the provisions of proviso to section 24(1) of the Act.

2. Further the Honorable High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 26.2.2016 in the W.P.(C) 6030/2013 & CM APPL. 13275/2013 has allowed the writ petition filed by the CBDT wherein the Honorable High Court was requested to give decision in the matter of petitioner being an exempted organization under RTI Act”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.11.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 21.12.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

A written submission dated 09.04.2025 filed by the appellant is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:

“With respect to the filed RTI and first appeal at the Income tax department, further dissatisfied with PIO and FAA response, the undersigned had filed a 2nd appeal with CIC. In the filed RTI petition the undersigned requested PIO good office, to provide the below requested information as per RTI Act,2005 with respect to concluded investigation for filed Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) against the Tax Evader – Sardar Sukhdev Singh Katyal.

1. Kindly provide the final outcome of TEP filed against ‘Sukhdev Singh Kaywal’.

2. Kindly provide the amount of tax evasion amount as demand recovery imposed upon S. Sukhdev Singh Katyal.

3. Kindly provide the penalty amount imposed upon S. Sukhdev Singh Katyal.

4. Kindly provide what amount of tax been deposited by S. Sukhdev Singh Katyal in your good office as imposed upon him, as per filed TEP against him.

5. Kindly provide what amount of penalty amount been deposited by S. Sukhdev Singh Katyal in your good office as imposed upon him, as per filed TEP against him.

6. Kindly intimate via which mode (draft/cash/etc) S. Sukhdev Singh Katyal made the recovery demand and penalty payment in income tax good office as imposed upon him, as per filed TEP against him.

With this 2nd appeal Written Submission, the undersigned once again relies upon the following decisions from Honorable CIC & Honorable High Court, where it was clearly mentioned that TEP outcome to be clearly intimated to the complainant.

i File No. CIC/BS/A/2015/001626/11818

ii File No. CIC/BS/A/2015/001697/12024

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 1830

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONVinod Kumar Tiwari, JTajinder Singh – AppellantVersusDirectorate General Income Tax (Investigation) – RespondentCIC/MOFIN/A/2023/615953/DRITI

The complete denial of information under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act is inappropriate when the appellant is entitled to know the outcome of a Tax Evasion Petition, emphasizing public interest.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, J
Tajinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Directorate General Income Tax (Investigation) – Respondent
CIC/MOFIN/A/2023/615953/DRITI