Central Information Commission
P Venkateswara Rao vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 7 July, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCITH/A/2022/132750 +
CIC/DRITI/A/2022/136503
P Venkateshwara Rao ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Deputy Director of lncome Tax (Investigation),
Unit-III (4), 5th Floor, Shiva Towers, H. No. 46-20-15,
Danavaipeta, Rajamahendravaram,
East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh -531103. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05/07/2023
Date of Decision : 05/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note - The above mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for decision
as these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from appeals:
RTI applications filed on : 04/02/2022 & 12/03/2022
CPIO replied (ies) on : 06/05/2022
First appeals filed on : 12/03/2022 & 27/04/2022
First Appellate Authority orders : Not on record
2nd Appeals/Complaint dated : 14/06/2022 & 27/07/2022
1
CIC/CCITH/A/2022/132750
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.02.2022 with the CPIO, O/o. Pr. CCIT, Hyderabad seeking the following information:
1. Please provide the status of his complaint dated 02.11.2021 vide Ack. No. 221252110062
2. Please state whether CPIO has taken up his complaint for enquiry or not.
The CPIO's reply, if any, is not available on record.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.03.2022. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
CIC/DRITI/A/2022/136503 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.03.2022 with the CPIO, O/o. ADIT (Investigation ), Hyderabad seeking status and action taken report on his two complaints dated 21.01.2021 and 04.02.2021.
The CPIO (upon receipt of RTI Application on transfer basis) furnished a reply to the appellant on 06.05.2022 stating as under:
"Your attention is drawn to the Second Schedule of RTI Act, 2005 was amended vide no. GSR. 235(E) dated 27.03.2008 published in the Gazette of India, as per which the office of the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) is excluded from the preview of RTI Act, 2005 and the information sought also does not fall under the exclusions provided thereto. Hence, information sought by you cannot be furnished."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.04.2022. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeal(s).
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-2
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: M. Punith Kuttiah, DDIT (Invt.) & CPIO present through video- conference.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of RTI Applications expressed his dissatisfaction that the information has been allegedly vaguely denied by the CPIO without giving any specific reason under any of the specific clause of Section 8 of the RTI Act. He further contested the fact that his complaints have been mishandled by the Respondent as recently he has been manhandled by the Income Tax Authorities and treated rudely. He furthermore questioned action of the Respondent in disclosure of his residential address to the third party against whom he had filed a complaint , without his consent, which is not permissible under the RTI Act.
In response to Appellant's contentions, the CPIO invited attention of the bench filed prior to hearing, relevant extracts of which (case wise) are reproduced below in verbatim -
CIC/CCITH/A/2022/132750 "....3. The CPIO i.e., Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit-III (4), Rajahmundry has disposed of the RTI application on 24.02.2022 stating that O/o Director General of Income Tax (Inv.) is excluded from the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 as was amended vide No.GSR.235(E), dated 27.03.2008 published in the Gazette of India. As this office forms part of the Office of DGIT (Inv.), as listed in the 2nd schedule S.No.16 of the exempted organisation/agencies, the information sought cannot be furnished.
4. Thereafter, one more RTI application dated 12.03.2022 was received by the O/o DDIT (Inv.), Unit-III (4), Rajahmundry on 02.05.2022 and the same was disposed on 06.05.2022 on the same lines.
5. Later the appellant has filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, i.e., O/o the Additional Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit-III, Visakhapatnam on 12.03.2022. The First Appellate Authority has disposed of the appeal and has upheld the decision of the CPIO, stating that CPIO functions under the Director General of Income Tax (Inv) which is excluded from the purview of RTI Act and that the information sought also does not fall under the 3 exclusions provided thereto. Further, it was stated that on perusal of the proforma of the appeal filed by the appellant, in column 6 regarding reasons for appeal, the appellant has not mentioned any categorical reasons. All that was mentioned by the appellant was "I am the complainant, and I had a right to know the status and action taken report on my complaint". The appellant had not made out any case to show that supply of information is in public interest and more over the appellant is a third party as far as the said information is concerned. It was also stated that section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 categorically exempts certain information from within the purview of the Act which includes information which would impede the process of Investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders as provided under section 8(h) of the Act. The status of enquiry on a confidential information before the investigation wing falls within the purview of section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 and hence the same cannot be construed as public information within the purview of the Act. Hence, it was concluded that the appellant had not made out any case to show that supply of information is in public interest and moreover the appellant is a third party as far as the said information is concerned and the appeal was disposed.
6. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.03.2022 passed by the First Appellate Authority, the appellant has preferred second appeal dated 29.06.2022 against the following grounds:
(i) The Central Information Commission has given a decision in case No. CIC/ok/A/00163 dated 07.07.2006. The Commission held that quoting the provisions of Section 8(1) of RTI Act to denial the information without giving any justification or (üi) grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply not acceptable, and clearly amount to mala-fide denial of legitimate information. The public authority must provide The reasons for rejecting the particular application. Commission further held that not providing the reasons of how the application for information was rejected according to particular provision of the Act would attract penalties under section 20(1) of the Act. "
(ii)Further, the Hon 'ble CIC has given decision in case no CIC /ok/A/O0163 dt 7-7-2006, CIC/SG/A/2011/003293/17640 and File No. CIC/WB/A/2009/ 000412-SM etc. 4
(iii) Further, I humbly submit that the 1 appellate authority also rejected the information stating that the appellant is a third party as per the said information concerned. It is not correct and it is highly inacceptable because I am the Complainant and I have asked the status and action taken report on my own Complainant, but not asked about others complainant. So, how the 1st appellate authority has rejected the information treating me as third party when I myself asked on my own complaint.
(iv) Further, I humbly submit that it became a fashion to every CPIO and 1st Appellant Authority to simply & blindly reject the information under section 8 of RTI Act and stating that third party information. Hence, the actions of CPIO & FAA will attract penalties and fine.
(v) It seems that the authorities are facilitating the fraudsters who are doing cash transactions and avoiding to pay the Correct tax to the Government on their profits and earnings."
7 Further, the appellant has filed a letter dated 14.06.2022 before I have resubmitted my 2nd appeal on 19.02.2021 for taking up. But the Hon'ble CIC has not taken up my 2nd appeal so far. Hence, I request the office of Hon'ble CIC to state the present status of my 2d appeal vide diary No. 100831/21.
8 The appellant has resubmitted his second appeal on 27.07.2022 with the following remarks:
In the present case, I have stated that my application was forwarded under section 6(3) to other CPIO, Rajahmundry (who have received) for which I have enclosed the copy of that letter and cited the said reference also in my 2nd appeal reference, for your kind reference. But the office has asked about reply copy. Further, I have stated that the CPIO and 1 Appellate Authority have not responded till the date of submission of my 2nd appeal for which I requested the Honble CIC to take action and impose maximum fine on non-response of CPIO and 1 Appellate Authority, but without reading and going through my submissions, my 20 appeal was returned by asking the copies of replies of CPIO and 1st Appellate Authority. Further, I humbly submit that my 1t appeal can read a blind person also, but you said that it is not legible without seeing and reading. Further, I submit that my application under RTI Act is in light colour because of XeroX machine and due to my handwriting. I was habituated to submit my applications with handwriting to reduce the cost 5 and time, at times the pens may create some problems in hurry. I sent the originals to the CPIO and 1st appellate authority, so I can't bring back them to submit the legible copies to yourselves by incurring huge expenditure. I can only submit the neat copy of my application under RTI Act. Further, I submit that at times the copies of letters, correspondence or information of CPIO and 1st appellate authority will be more, so submission all copies will be more costlier to the appellant and complication to the scrutiny persons if the submitted copies are not in proper order.
9. At this juncture, is appropriate to quote Section 2(n) of the RTI 2005 which reads as under:
"2(n):- "third party" means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority."
From the words circumscribed u/Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, 2005, it is vividly clear that any person other than the citizen making a request for information can be termed as 'third party'. As the information has been sought by Sri. P Venkateswara Rao and the information sought pertains to Sri Jogi Srinivasu the exemption of Act.
10. Efforts have been undertaken to locate the orders case No. CIC /ok/A/O0163 dt 7-7-2006, CIC/SG/A/2011/003293/1 7640 and File No. CIC/WB/A/2009/ 000412-SM etc to provide a suitable counter argument. However, the copies of the order could not be located in the website. It is requested that a copy of the orders maybe furnished to verify if the facts of the case are applicable in this case.
11. Further, as already reiterated by the FAA, the made out appellant had not any case to show that supply of and more information is in public interest is concerned. It the was appellant is a third party as far as the said information also stated that section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 categorically exempts certain information from within the purview of the Act which includes information which would impede the process of Investigation or apprehension, or prosecution of offenders as provided under section 8(h) of the Act. The status of enquiry on a confidential information before the investigation wing falls within the purview of section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 and hence the same cannot be construed as public information within the purview of the Act. Hence, it is concluded that the appellant had not made out any case to show 6 that supply of information is in public interest and moreover the appellant is a third party as far as the said information is concerned.
12. In view of the above facts and contents, it is submitted that the RTI application filed by the appellant may kindly be quashed and the appeal dismissed."
CIC/DRITI/A/2022/136503 "....2. The said application was received by the O/o. DDIT (Inv.), Unit- III (4), Rajahmundry on transfer through email dated 16.02.2022.
3. The CPIO i.e., Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit-III (4), Rajahmundry has disposed of the RTI application on 24.02.2022 stating that O/o Director General of Income Tax (Inv.) is excluded from the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 as was amended vide No.GSR.235(E), dated 27.03.2008 published in the Gazette of India. As this office forms part of the Office of DGIT (Inv.), as listed in the 2nd schedule S.No.16 of the exempted organisation/agencies, the information sought cannot be furnished.
4. Thereafter, one more RTI application dated 12.03.2022 was received by the O/o DDIT (Inv.), Unit-III (4), Rajahmundry on 02.05.2022 and the same was disposed on 06.05.2022 on the same lines.
5. Later the appellant has filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, i.e., O/o the Additional Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit-III, Visakhapatnam on 12.03.2022. The First Appellate Authority has disposed of the appeal and has upheld the decision of the CPIO, stating that CPIO functions under the Director General of Income Tax (Inv) which is excluded from the purview of RTI Act and that the information sought also does not fall under the exclusions provided thereto. Further, it was stated that on perusal of the proforma of the appeal filed by the appellant, in column 6 regarding reasons for appeal, the appellant has not mentioned any categorical reasons. All that was mentioned by the appellant was "I am the complainant, and I had a right to know the status and action taken report on my complaint". The appellant had not made out any case to show that supply of information is in public interest and more over the appellant is a third party as far as the said information is concerned. It was also stated that section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 categorically exempts certain information from within the purview of the Act 7 which includes information which would impede the process of Investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders as provided under section 8(h) of the Act. The status of enquiry on a confidential information before the investigation wing falls within the purview of section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 and hence the same cannot be construed as public information within the purview of the Act. Hence, it was concluded that the appellant had not made out any case to show that supply of information is in public interest and moreover the appellant is a third party as far as the said information is concerned and the appeal was disposed.
6. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.03.2022 passed by the First Appellate Authority, the appellant has preferred second appeal dated 29.06.2022 against the following grounds:
(i) The Central Information Commission has given a decision in case No.CIC/ok/A/00163 dated 07.07.2006. The Commission held that quoting the provisions of Section 8(1) of RTI Act to denial the information without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply not acceptable, and clearly amount to mala-fide denial of legitimate information. The public authority must provide The reasons for rejecting the particular application. Commission further held that not providing the reasons of how the application for information was rejected according to particular provision of the Act would attract penalties under section 20(1) of the Act. "
(ii) Further, the Hon 'ble CIC has given decision in case no CIC/ok/A/O0163 dt 7-7-2006, CIC/SG/A/2011/003293/17640 and File No. CIC/WB/A/2009/ 000412-SM etc.
(iii) Further, I humbly submit that the 1 appellate authority also rejected the information stating that the appellant is a third party as per the said information concerned. It is not correct and it is highly inacceptable because I am the Complainant and I have asked the status and action taken report on my own Complainant, but not asked about others complainant. So, how the 1st appellate authority has rejected the information treating me as third party when I myself asked on my own complaint.
(iv) Further, I humbly submit that it became a fashion to every CPIO and 1st Appellant Authority to simply & blindly reject the information under section 8 8 of RTI Act and stating that third party information. Hence, the actions of CPIO & FAA will attract penalties and fine.
(v) It seems that the authorities are facilitating the fraudsters who are doing cash transactions and avoiding to pay the Correct tax to the Government on their profits and earnings.
7 Further, the appellant has filed a letter dated 14.06.2022 before CIC and stated that -
I have resubmitted my 2nd appeal on 19.02.2021 for taking up. But the Hon'ble CIC has not taken up my 2nd appeal so far. Hence, I request the office of Hon'ble CIC to state the present status of my 2d appeal vide diary No. 100831/21.
8 The appellant has resubmitted his second appeal on 27.07.2022 with the following remarks:
In the present case, I have stated that my application was forwarded under section 6(3) to other CPIO, Rajahmundry (who have received) for which I have enclosed the copy of that letter and cited the said reference also in my 2nd appeal reference, for your kind reference. But the office has asked about reply copy. Further, I have stated that the CPIO and 1 Appellate Authority have not responded till the date of submission of my 2nd appeal for which I requested the Honble CIC to take action and impose maximum fine on non-response of CPIO and 1 Appellate Authority, but without reading and going through my submissions, my 20 appeal was returned by asking the copies of replies of CPIO and 1st Appellate Authority. Further, I humbly submit that my It appeal can read a blind person also, but you said that it is not legible without seeing and reading. Further, I submit that my application under RTI Act is in light colour because of XeroX machine and due to my handwriting. I was habituated to submit my applications with handwriting to reduce the cost and time, at times the pens may create some problems in hurry. I sent the originals to the CPIO and 1st appellate authority, so I can't bring back them to submit the legible copies to yourselves by incurring huge expenditure. I can only submit the neat copy of my application under RTI Act. Further, I submit that at times the copies of letters, correspondence or information of CPIO and 1st appellate authority will be more, so submission all copies will be more 9 costlier to the appellant and complication to the scrutiny persons if the submitted copies are not in proper order.
9. At this juncture, is appropriate to quote Section 2(n) of the RTI 2005 which reads as under:
"2(n):- "third party" means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority."
From the words circumscribed u/Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, 2005, it is vividly clear that any person other than the citizen making a request for information can be termed as 'third party'. As the information has been sought by Sri. P Venkateswara Rao and the information sought pertains to Sri Jogi Srinivasu the exemption of Act. As the information Assessee sought is squarely covered under section 8(1)G) of the has failed to demonstrate how this information has a larger public interest and it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
10. Efforts have been undertaken to locate the orders case No. CIC /ok/A/O0163 dt 7-7-2006, CIC/SG/A/2011/003293/1 7640 and File No.CIC/WB/A/2009/ 000412-SM etc to provide a suitable counter argument. However, the copies of the order could not be located in the website. It is requested that a copy of the orders maybe furnished to verify if the facts of the case are applicable in this case.
11.Further, as already reiterated by the FAA, the appellant had not made out any case to show that supply of and more information is in public interest is concerned and moreover It the was appellant is a third party as far as the said information also stated that section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 categorically exempts certain information from within the purview of the Act which includes information which would impede the process of Investigation or apprehension, or prosecution of offenders as provided under section 8(h) of the Act. The status of enquiry on a confidential information before the investigation wing falls within the purview of section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 and hence the same cannot be construed as public information within the purview of the Act. Hence, it is concluded that the appellant had not made out any case to show that supply of information is in public interest and moreover the appellant is a third party as far as the said information is concerned.
1012. In view of the above facts and contents, it is submitted that the RTI application filed by the appellant may kindly be quashed and the appeal dismissed."
While summing up his arguments, the CPIO apprised the Commission that investigation on the Appellant's complaints is underway ad summons have been issued to the concerned parties few days back.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records finds no scope of any relief and is in agreement with the initial replies of CPIO that the Respondent Public Authority being under the administrative control of DGIT (Investigation) is an exempt organization as per Second Schedule of Section 24 of the RTI Act. Further, the material on record does not suggest any allegation of corruption or human rights violation in the matter, for which reason, the Commission finds no reason to invoke the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act to allow the disclosure of information, if any. For the sake of clarity, the relevant provision of Section 24(1) is reproduced as under:
"24. Act not to apply to certain organizations.--
(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:..."
In this context, the Commission is guided by a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs Union Of India & Ors [W.P.(C) 83/2014] dated 03.02.2014, which held as under:
"4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption...." [Emphasis Supplied] 11 The said judgment was later upheld by a division bench of the Court in LPA 229/2014 on 11.03.2014.
Lastly, in pursuance to clause 4 of hearing notice, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of his latest written submissions free of charge with the Appellant immediately upon receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 12