Tired of following up with the income tax department on refunds? Now you can

RELATED ARTICLES Budget may bring more services in tax net Withdraw customs duty, countervailing tax on coal imports Vodafone says India tax victory boosts IPO chances Don't raise taxes in budget; CII to govt Tax on diesel vehicles will stigmatise technology: SIAM

question the reason for the delay under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. In a landmark judgement, the central information commissioner has ruled that assesses have the right to seek information on delay on refunds under the RTI Act and the department cannot deny a reply.

L Lakshmi Narayanan, a Chennai-based assessee who falls under the Hindu undivided family category, had not received tax refunds totalling about

Rs 3.32 lakh for assessment years 2003-04, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2008-09 respectively.

So under the RTI act, he filed an application with the income tax office in Chennai seeking reasons for the inordinate delay in the issue of refunds and the timeframe by which the refunds were likely to be issued.

The local officials rejected the application stating that the information sought is personal information and it has no relationship to any public activity or interest, citing the provisions of the RTI Act.

Following this, the applicant filed an appeal to the joint commissioner of income tax.

Hearing the case, M L Sharma, the central information commissioner, said, “Denying reply under the said provisions in this case is misappropriation of the law. The applicant has not sought any information which the public authority is holding in fiduciary capacity and hence the said provisions do not apply.”

In an order passed on January 14, Sharma also asked the concerned income tax authorities to disclose the reason for the delay and also issue a refund within three months from the date of the order.

“This is a landmark judgement and the RTI could be a effective route for knowing the reasons for the delay,” Anil Rego, chief executive of Right Horizons, a wealth management company, said.

Lakshmi Narayanan said he had received refunds for 2006 and 2007 during the course of the case, but the officials have not yet responded to the final order of the commissioner.