Information regarding Income Tax refunds...CIC remands matter back to the ITO and disposes the appeal !

[karira]

Applicant had asked for various informations relating to number of IT refunds claimed, number refunded within 4 months, number not refunded within 4 months, interest payable by the IT department etc...

In the first hearing, IC A N Tiwari ruled on 16 July 2008 that Chairman, CBDT should look into the matter and revert back to the CIC with various informations and actions.

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/AT-16072008-22.pdf

Considering the larger ramification of this information, it is important that the views of the highest authority in the income tax hierarchy is received before the Commission makes up its mind about further steps in this petition.
6. The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) may be asked to file a written-submission before the Commission about what is the policy of the Department regarding attending to the several refund-claims filed by income tax assessees and, what system has been kept in place to respond to these claims without loss of time, or at least within a reasonable time. He should also inform the Commission as to what monitoring mechanism is available for the higher authorities in the Department to ensure that the assessees are not discomfited in receiving these refunds. A statement about what avenues are available to the income tax assessees by way of appeal against delays in responding to their refund-claims be also submitted before the Commission.
7. These submissions be filed within one month of the receipt of these directions.

In the subsequent hearing on 23 October 2008, CBDT admitted that the information asked by the applicant is indeed available at the ITO level and CIC ordered that it should be supplied to the applicant.

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/AT-23102008-04.pdf

[vijendra singh]

It is crystal clear in this case that info was held by the PIO.& AA. It is also admitted by deptt during CIC hearing that info will be supplied . So then any person of ordinary sense could decide that the govt deptt i.e. PIO denied the info intentionally , malafidely; & therefore the CIC was bound to decide Rs 25000 penalty as per RTI spirit. It seemed that CIC abetted the violation of RTI Act. Such misdeeds of the controlling authorities are big hurdles in holy path of RTI. Nobody cared for the mental , physical, economical losses/ deterrants caused to the applicant during 400 days intentional delay. Such appellant could be awarded Rs. 10000 Compensation also. But CIC decided neither Penalty , Nor compensation. Such insensible decisions of ICs embolden the guilty PIOs in future also.