CBDT does not have information about blackmoney

The Hindu: New Delhi: Wednesday, 04 February 2015.

The Union Ministry of Finance has said that the information pertaining to the blackmoney stashed away in foreign banks and other details of the action plan to get back the blackmoney was not available with the Investigation Division of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT).

In a reply to the information sought under the Right To Information (RTI) act by Mohammad Imran Khan from Kalaburagi city, Amit Mohan Mittal, Under Secretary (Investigation) and Chief Public Information Officer said that whenever any credible information pertaining to “tax evasion”is detected or received, appropriate action including levy of penalty and launching of prosecution under Direct Tax Laws are taken.

Mr. Khan in his application on October 24, 2014 under the provisions of the RTI Act had sought the information pertaining to the blackmoney from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). In his application Mr. Khan stated that the information sought pertains to the blackmoney deposited in foreign banks by the Indian citizens.

The PMO transferred the application to the Department of Revenue in the Finance Ministry for further action on October 31 last year. Not satisfied with the reply provided by the CPIO of the CBDT, Mr. Khan preferred an appeal to Santosh Kumar, deputy Secretary (Investigation) CBDT who is the appellate authority.

In his order passed on January 16, Mr. Kumar, while rejecting the appeal, had upheld the contention of the applicant that the under secretary of the CBDT had failed to provide the specific information point-by-point as sought by the applicant. “The CPIO may, therefore, examine it again and take appropriate action, including transfer to other cPIO concerned in accordance with law.” The order further stated that the action should be initiated within five days of receipt of the order.

Mr. Khan, who now prefers to appeal before the Central Information Commissioner against the order of the first appellate authority said that the appellate authority had not given him a chance to present his case by failing to hear his case and passing a unilateral order.