Central Information Commission
Shivnandan Singh vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 31 August, 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/CCAPT/A/2021/124758
Shivnandan Singh ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Pr. Commissioner
of Income Tax, Bhagalpur,
RTI Cell, Katcheri Chowk,
Bhagalpur-812001, Bihar .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30/08/2022
Date of Decision : 30/08/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26/03/2021
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 20/05/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21/06/2021
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.03.2021 seeking the following information:
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.05.2021. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Prasun Jha, ITO Ward 1(1) & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant narrated the factual background of the information sought for in the RTI Application and agitated against assessment of some crores of rupees in his income tax returns.
The CPIO invited the attention of the bench to his written submissions sent prior to the hearing wherein the following was stated:
"
1. On perusal of RTI application of the applicant, it came to notice that the application dated 26.03.2021 was made to O/o Pr. Commissioner, Bhagalpur address at Katchari chowk Bhagalpur.2
2. It is pertinent here to mention that due to structural change in Income Tax department, the said office was merged to Patna office in August 2020.
3. Apart from this the local office in that building was also shifted from Income Tax Office, Katchari Chowk to Income Tax Office, Arc Hospital Building, Near to Camp Jail, Bhagalpur and the distance of the both building is about 5 kms from the old building. It is also mention here that no communication/letter has been received to the office of undersigned either from old or new building of Income Tax.
4. Further, on perusal of message attached by the applicant with application, it is seen that the assessee has not mentioned in his PAN Number on the application and without PAN the undersigned is not in position to view any information of the assessee. It is also mention here that this message is general nature of message which was sent by the CPC (Central Processing Cell) Bengaluru for awareness of payment of advance tax for current financial year if the advance tax due for the payment.
5. The message of assessee reflected the same with a guidance by the department to view such types of transactions on e-filing portal of Income Tax Department with the path log in to e-filing portal -- My account -
Compliance portal..."
In furtherance of the averred submissions, the CPIO advised the Appellant to take up his grievances with the CPC, Bangalore.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the Appellant has not sought for any information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as he has asked for clarifications/explanation of the message received by him on his mobile number from CPC, Bangalore. Even further, during the hearing, the Appellant narrated further grievances in this regard based on the data he may have accessed on his e-filing portal of the Income Tax Department. The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.3
For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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 regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it washeld as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. 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 advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to 4 why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act are confined to providing access to "information". Here, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be 5 drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Having observed as above, no scope of relief is pertinent in the matter. However, the Appellant is advised to provide his PAN details to the CPIO for seeking further guidance in the matter to pursue the grievance before the appropriate forum. Similarly, considering the fact that no reply was received by the Appellant in the matter till date, in order to facilitate the Appellant, the CPIO is directed to provide a reply to him incorporating the details mentioned in his written submissions dated 29.08.2022 sent to the Commission.
The above-mentioned reply shall be sent to the Appellant by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 6 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7