TIOL-DDT 500 · the untouched capture
Rendered as it looked. Links and images are disabled in this view; the file itself is untouched.
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<title>Taxindiaonline's DDT 402</title>
</head>
<body >
<p> </p>
<p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><img src="http://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/images/DDT_500_index.gif" width="280" height="268" hspace="5" border="0"></b></font></p>
<p> </p>
<p><b><font color="#663399" size="3" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">TIOL-DDT
500</font></b><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><br>
28 11 2006<br>
Tuesday</b></font></p>
<p align=center><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">IT - Exemption to
universities – rules amended</font></strong></font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Income Tax exemption to universities, hospitals etc, is
subject to approval by the Board, Chief Commissioner or DG. Now the Rules are
amended to stipulate that the approval given before 1<sup>st</sup> December
2006 will be valid only for three assessment years.</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=35&filename=notification/cbdt/2006/it06not0357.htm">NOTIFICATION
No. 357/2006, Dated: November 24, 2006</a></font></p>
<p align=center><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Undesirable Contact
Men?</font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is an open secret that CBI maintains a list
of undesirable contact men called UCM. The list is circulated to all government
departments to keep an eye on these undesirable men, though most of them must
be hanging around the corridors of power. A Supreme Court lawyer P C Srivastava
came to know that he figured in the list for 29 years. He asked the CBI under
the RTI Act,</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1.
Whether any written complaint in respect of any undesirable activities alleged
to have been carried out by him was made against him to CBI.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2.
If yes, by whom with full particulars and copy of said complaint.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3.
If there was no such written complaint against him then what was the other
basis for CBI to include his name in the said list of undesirable Contact
Men.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The CBI refused to part with the information
and so Srivastaav appealed the Central Information Commission. The very existence
of such a list was doubted in the Commission. The appeal was dismissed as the
appellant failed to produce any evidence to prove that CBI indeed had possession
of the document sought. Even if the list existed, the CIC was inclined not to
reveal it as it observed,</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><i>Security and investigating agencies of the
Govt. can and do advise the Government about persons, contact with whom is not
in the best interest of the Government. It is a system of forewarning the Government
about contacts with persons of doubtful reputation and credentials. Such information,
by its very nature, cannot be open and has to be made in the strictest confidence.
The basis on which the security/investigating agencies prepare such list has
to be the information collected from a variety of sources. These sources provide
the assistance to the security agency in full confidence that the information
shall not be disclosed nor the informant’s identity compromised. It is for the
security agency to decide, based on its investigation and enquiries, as to how
to filter and collate information received from various sources – which to go
by and which to discard. It is a complex process of intelligence gathering which
in our view enjoys the protection of sub-section 8(1) (g). There is no public
interest that would commend disclosure of such information.</i></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Commission was not very happy with the advocate’s
language when it observed,</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><i>We are disturbed to find the appeal before
us larded with frequent use of invective and aspersion against senior government
functionaries of the land. This Commission is mandated only to facilitate access
to information, not be party to character assassination. Appellant Shri PC Srivastava,
a venerable advocate is advised to avoid the use of such intemperate language,
unbecoming of judicial decorum in which he is well experienced, in his correspondence
with this Commission.</i></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.hrindiaonline.com/laws4u/rti1.php?filename=rti/2006/2006-HRIOL-99-CIC.htm">Click
here to see the full text of the CIC order.</a></font></p>
<p align=center><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Accused officer cannot
use RTI Act to get info on his prosecution – Central Excise commissioner loses
in High Court </font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A Central Excise commissioner prosecuted by
the CBI asked for certain papers relating to sanction pf prosecution. The CPIO
informed him,</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><i>“Perusal of the said file reveals that it
deals, inter alia, with prosecution sanctioned against you by the Competent
Authority. The file further reveals that the CBI has already filed a charge
sheet in the Court of Hon’ble Special Judge for CBI cases, <st1:City><st1:place>Visakhapatnam</st1:place></st1:City>
on 27.1.2005 based on the prosecution sanctioned against you by the Competent
Authority. Since the proceedings are in progress in the court of law, the supply
the documents, requested by you, at this stage would impede the process of prosecution
of offenders. As such, exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTIAct, 2005 is
hereby claimed.”</i></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Commissioner appealed [He is now a Commissioner
(Appeals)] that since prosecution has already been filed in the court of law,
there would not be any impediment if the documents sought by him are provided
to him.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The appellate authority held that <i>“prosecution
in itself is a process and impediment may occur at any stage during prosecution’</i>.
And so refused to part with the information.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Commissioner took the case to the CIC which
held,</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><i>The matter is pending before the trial court
for adjudication. There is a due process of law under which natural justice
would be ensured to him. As the process of prosecution, as per the established
procedure, has been initiated, the decision of CPIO and appellate authority
to claim exemption u/s 8(1)(h) from disclosure of information sought is justified.</i></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The perseverant Commissioner took the case to
the Delhi High Court which observed,</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">"There is no error or illegality in the
orders passed by the respondents (CIC) seeking exemption under Section 8(1)
(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 nor any procedural unreasonableness can be inferred."</font></p>
<p align=center><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Two Customs officers
convicted in Mumbai blast case</font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Two Customs officers, R K Singh and M S Sayyedwere
convicted yesterday in the Mumbai blast case. Sayyed in his confession to the
Police had said,</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><i>Singh asked for Rs 10 lakh from the two smugglers
(Dossa and Rahimchacha) for the entire Alibaug Customs. The two men said that
for the landing of silver on December 2, they had paid him Rs 7.8 lakh and since
the market price of silver was just Rs 6,000 per kg, the bribe quoted by Singh
was not affordable. Singh demanded that then at least they should give him some
information regarding another case of smuggling, which they agreed to…</i></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><i>Around noon on February 12, 1993, DawoodPhanse’s
son, Sarfaraz came to meet Singh. He had a plastic packet containing Rs 3 lakh,
which he handed over to Singh. He told him that his father would come to his
office around 2:30 pm….The next day, Singh saab gave me Rs 50,000 and told me
not to tell anyone about the whole story. He told me that the money was for
the landing which took place in Shekhadi on February 3.</i></font></p>
<p align=center><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF0000">DDT is 500 – Thank
you for the support</font></strong></font></p>
<p align=justify><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Completing 500 editions is by itself not an achievement
to celebrate but certainly a reminder. DDT thanks all the patrons – and there
are many for the support, criticism and accolades.</font></p>
<p><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until tomorrow with more DDT </font></p>
<p><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have a nice day. </font></p>
<p><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mail your comments to </font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="mailto:vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com">vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com</a></span></font></p>
</body>
</html>