TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 173
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovided information to the department with regard to the invasion of sales tax by M/s DCM Ltd. and on the basis of the said information, an additional demand of Rs. 44 Crores was raised against M/s DCM Ltd. It is the case of the petitioner that the Delhi Administration vide a Notification No. F.3/77/69/Fin.(C) dated 28.12.1970 had provided that an informant is entitled to a reward of up to 10% of the tax realized on the basis of the information provided to the Department. It is submitted that the petitioner's father, late Sh. O.C. Jain, on the basis of his claim of providing the information as pointed out hereinabove, had filed a Civil Suit bearing no. 2154/1995 before this Court, for rendition of accounts, inter alia, praying therein to determine the reward amount payable to him for the services rendered by him. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the petitioner's father passed away on 08.01.2004 and the petitioner herein was impleaded as legal heir in the said suit. 4. The aforesaid suit was dismissed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 19.12.2006 on the ground that the notified scheme envisages realisation of the evaded tax before an informant would....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....smissed vide order dated 20.06.2007 on the ground that the supply of information as requested by the petitioner was of commercial confidence and that the disclosure of the same would not serve any public interest. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a second appeal dated 04.07.2007, bearing no. CIC/AT/A/2007/00865, before the Second Appellate Authority i.e. respondent no. 1, under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act. The Petitioner preferred the said appeal, on the ground that the First Appellate Authority had committed an error in not appreciating that the information sought by the petitioner did not fall within the restrictions of the provisions mentioned hereinabove and further, that the supply of said information would not amount to information relating to commercial confidence, as it was on the basis of the information provided by the petitioner's father an additional demand of Rs. 44 Crores was raised against M/s DCM Ltd. However, the second appeal was dismissed vide order dated 06.10.2007 by the learned Central Information Commission. 10. Per contra, the counter affidavit dated 12.09.2008 filed on behalf of the respondents, it is reiterated that the information sought by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the normal manner based upon the documents furnished by dealer during the course of the assessment. It also came to the conclusion that assessment was made on the basis of sales version as disclosed in the sales statement of the assessee itself. There is no material while assessing the dealer by the Assessing Authority which might have been recovered with the assistance of the complainant and form the basis of assessment. These were all routine assessment which was made on the material supplied by the assessee through his books of accounts only and, therefore, committee clearly came to the conclusion that there is no clear nexus between the information proportionately furnished by Shri Jain and additional tax demand during the assessment. Copy of the report is annexed as Annexure R-2." 11. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 12. The first appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed vide an order dated 20.06.2007 by learned First Appellate Authority under RTI Act by observing as under:- "7. The appeal was finally heard by the appellate authority on 06.06.07 in presence of Shri Virendra Kumar Jain, the appellant. Afte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is of commercial confidence and disclosure of this information will not serve any public interest whatsoever. Thus, the decision of PIO is not disturbed. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. If unsatisfied, the appellant may appeal to the Commission within 90 days from the date of this order at: "Central Information Commission, Department of Personal & Training, Block No.4, 5th floor, Old JNU Campus, New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi-11 0067" 13. Subsequently, the second appeal was also disposed of vide order date 06.10.2007, by observing as under:- "3. The type of information requested by the appellant is covered by the ratio of the Commission's decisions in income tax matters in the case of Mrs. Shobha R. Arora Vs. Income Tax, Mumbai: Appeal No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00220; Decision No. 1191/C(A)/2006: Date of Decision : 14.7.2006 and Ms. Neeru Bajaj Vs. Income Tax; Appeal Nos. CIC/AT/A/2006/00644 & CIC/AT/A/2006/00646; Date of Decision 21.2.2007." 14. This Court has also examined the information sought by the petitioner and the relevant provisions as pointed out hereinabove. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner would be ....