Rakesh Kumar Monga vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 16 July, 2021

[Cites 5, Cited by 1]

Central Information Commission

Rakesh Kumar Monga vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 16 July, 2021

Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

                              के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/CCITD/A/2019/155577

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Monga                                   ... अपीलकता/Appellant
                                     VERSUS
                                      बनाम
CPIO                                                     ... ितवादी /Respondent
O/o. the Pr. Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax, Central Revenue
Building, IP Estate, New Delhi-
110002

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-

RTI : 30-09-2019           FA     : 19-10-2019         SA       : 20-11-2019

CPIO : 10-10-2019          FAO : 01-11-2019            Hearing : 12-07-2021

                                     ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) O/o. the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information is as under:-

"1.) Whether the long term property (house) held by the father gifted to daughter is treated as long term property in the hands of daughter immediately after the gift is made. What are the latest precedent/decision taken by income tax department in such cases;

2) What is the date of acquisition of such property (house) by daughter in such cases for the purpose of indexation for arriving at capital gains.

Whether it is the date of gift deed or date of acquisition of property by father. What are the latest precedent/ decision taken by tax department in such cases;" etc. Page 1 of 3

2. The CPIO responded on 10-10-2019. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 19.10.2019 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The first appellate authority was ordered on 01.11.2019 and disposed of his first appeal. He filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information. Hearing:

3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri. Meghnad Gavit, CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.

4. The appellant submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 30.09.2019.

5. The respondent vide their letter dated 10.10.2019, requested the Appellant to refer to explanation 1(b) to Section 2(42A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the first part of every question. He further submitted that no record is maintained in the office with regard to the second part of all the three questions in the RTI application.

Decision:

6. This Commission observes that the queries raised by the appellant on points nos. 1, 2 & 3 are clarificatory in nature. The CPIO is not expected to interpret information; or to furnish reply to situational queries; or to furnish clarifications. Hence, the queries seeking answer and explanation from the CPIO are not covered within the definition of 'information' u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, the Commission refers to the definition of 'information' u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:-

"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."

In this context, the Commission draws attention judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, 2011 (8) SCC 497,wherein it was held as under:-

35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide Page 2 of 3 advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."

7. Thus, he Commission observes that the RTI Act, 2005 has a limited mandate and clarifications are not permitted under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the reply of the CPIO is found satisfactory and is upheld. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.


                                                              नीरज कु मार गु ा)
                                          Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज           ा
                                                                  सूचना आयु )
                                        Information Commissioner (सू

                                                           दनांक / Date : 12-07-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत  ित)

S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)

Addresses of the parties:

1.    CPIO
      O/o. the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,

Central Revenue Building, IP Estate, New Delhi-110002

2. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Monga Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission