Central Information Commission
Ashish Virmani vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 16 June, 2022
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/CCITB/A/2021/105369
Ashish Virmani ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o the Director of Income
Tax, CPC, RTI Cell, 48/1 & 48/2,
Presitge Alpha, Beratena Agrahara,
Electronic City (Post), Hosur Road,
Bengaluru - 560500, Karnataka. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15/06/2022
Date of Decision : 15/06/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10/10/2020
CPIO replied on : 30/11/2020
First appeal filed on : 16/12/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 01/01/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 30/01/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2020 seeking information in respect of cyber hacking of my account registered with Income Tax Department:
"........................A complaint was lodged with Income Tax Department and I was advised to register a FIR with the cyber cell police in Faridabad (Haryana) to share the details of the cyber hacking like IP address etc. Accordingly a complaint 1 was lodged with Cyber Crime Cell, Faridabad during the same period. However, the FIR was registered by the Cyber Cell/ Haryana Police vide FIR No. 0685 dtd. 12/10/2019 with lot of follow ups. I request to kindly arrange to supply me the following information under RTI Act:-
1.Please supply me information on the dates and reference numbers of the communications from Cyber Cell, Haryana Police for seeking details like IP address and any other relevant details through which above login account was hacked.
2. Please supply me the information regarding details downloaded from my account with above referred login ID.
3. Please supply me information as whether Income Tax Department has shared the details with Cyber Cell/Haryana Police. If so, please provide me details of the communications like letter reference number and date.
4. Please supply me details shared by Income Tax Department to Cyber Cell/ Haryana Police along with a copy of the letter through which information like IP Address has been shared with Cyber Cell/ Haryana Police or any other appropriate agencies.
5. Please supply me the information as to name and designation and department of the official to whom the landline number 080-22864273 has been allotted during June 2018. ln case the telephone was working with many officials, please provide the details of all the officials."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the appellant on 30.11.2020 stating as follows:-
"Query Nos.1 to 5 : It is observed generally that upon receipt of a formal request from Cyber Crime / Police Authorities in cases involving suspected foul play / Cybercrime issue, the Centralized Processing Center, Bengaluru shares the details / outcome of the investigation directly with such authorities. Hence, the applicant is requested to approach the Cyber Cell / Haryana Police authorities in order to obtain any information in this regard."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.12.2020. FAA's order dated 01.01.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: 2
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by his father through audio/intra-video conference. Respondent: Rajamathangi V, ITO & CPIO present through audio/video conference.
The Rep. of the Appellant stated that instead of providing the information as sought for in the RTI Application, the CPIO has further added to their agony as the case of hacking his son's income tax account has been pending since the year 2019 and when they approached the Haryana Police, it was informed to them that the Income Tax authorities have not shared any details as yet with them.
The CPIO reiterated the reply provided by the CPIO but did not contest the allegations of the Appellant with respect to not having shared the details of the averred case with the Haryana Police.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record takes grave exception to the evasive reply provided by the CPIO to the Appellant in as much as the CPIO has neither provided the available information nor denied the same under any exemption of Section 8 of the RTI Act. At the same time, the availability or unavailability of the information has also not been specified, which lends a reasonable doubt that the right to information of the Appellant was obstructed.
The CPIO is now directed to provide a revised point-wise reply to the Appellant incorporating the available and specific information as sought for in the instant RTI Application. In the event of unavailability of the information in parts or as a whole, a categorical reply to this effect shall be stated against the relevant point by the CPIO. The information to be provided in compliance with this order shall be free of cost.
The above directions shall be complied with by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The CPIO is further directed to send a written explanation stating as to why no action should be initiated in the matter under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the prima-facie deliberate denial of the information to the Appellant. The written 3 explanation of the CPIO along with supporting documents, if any, shall reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4