Central Information Commission
Tammisetty Chakravarthy vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 30 July, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCITH/C/2023/621052
Tammisetty Chakravarthy ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1,
KHAMMAM, RAJEEVGUNJ, BESIDE
KINNERASANI THEATER, KHAMMAM
507001. ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.07.2024
Date of Decision : 30.07.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 06.12.2022
CPIO replied on : 03.01.2023
First appeal filed on : 27.01.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 14.02.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26.04.2023
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.12.2022 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 5
1) Provide details PAN No of Annam Seva Foundation, Rotary Nagar, Khammam.
2) Confirm about IT Returns and Audit reports filed to Income Tax Department, by Annam Seva Foundation, Rotary Nagar, Khammam since 2017.
3) If Filed IT Returns by Annam Seva Foundation, provide IT returned copies
4) If not filed IT Returns and Audit Reports by Annam Seva Foundation Action taken on Chairman and Members by Income Tax Office.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 03.01.2023 stating as under:
2. In connection with the subjected matter, you are here by informed that no information can be given as per clause (j) of sub-section 1 of Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005, as this involves no larger public interest and the details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are confidential in nature.
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 27.01.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 14.02.2023, held as under.
However, on perusal of the facts and keeping in light the decision of the Chief Information Commissioner in the case of C F Mathews Vs. CCIT, dt. 23.01.2020 and as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005, the appeal of the appellant made under RTI Act, 2005 is allowed and directed the ITO, Ward- 13(1), Hyderabad & CPIO under RTI Act, 2005 to provide the requisite information to the appellant. Hence, the appeal is disposed off accordingly. If the appellant is not satisfied with decision, he/she may file further appeal which lies with CIC and the address is appended below:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through Video-Conference. Respondent: Shri Uma Maheshwar Rao, Income Tax Officer & CPIO present through Video-Conference.Page 2 of 5
The Complainant, during the hearing, submitted that on 19.07.2024, certain information was provided to him by the Respondent but complete information was not provided to him.
Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record and the relevant extracts are reproduced hereinbelow:
"RTI Application filed by Backward Class Federation of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada is pending for providing information subsequent to the directions of the then First Appellate Authority i.e. AddI.CIT, Range-13, Hyderabad passed vide proceedings in F No.AddI.CIT/R-13/Hyd/RTI appeal/2022-23, dt.14-2-2023.
3. It may be noted that today i.e. on 19-7-2024 the RTI Applicant i.e. Backward Class Federation of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada has been provided with the information as available with this Office in the case of the assessee M/s. DR Annam Seva Foundation, Khammam. The information has been sent to the mail id of [email protected]. the RTI Applicant i.e.
4. It is hereby requested to kindly attend the hearing on 25-7-2024 and it is requested to please bring the above facts to the Hon'ble Central Information Commission at the time of hearing. A copy of the letter sent to the RTI applicant along with proof of passing of information to the applicant through Webmail of this Office is forwarded herewith for information."
"1 AACAD4919L 2 This Office came to know about the filing of RTI Application and subsequent correspondence in the case of M/s. DR Annam Seva Foundation on 18-7-2024 only as per the Mail received by this Office from the ITO, Ward-1, Khammam.
As per the records available in the Departmental Software i.e. ITM, the assessee filed returns from the PIN. Year 2020-21 only.
3 The available copies of returns for the Asst. Years 2021-22; 2022-23 & 2023-24 are enclosed along with the available Audit Report for the AY 22-23 & AY 2023-24.
Page 3 of 54 Not applicable"
Decision The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core contention raised by the Complainant in the instant Complaint was non- receipt of information from the PIO within stipulated period as per the RTI Act. In this regard, it was observed that the Respondent vide its letter dated 19.07.2024 had furnished revised and complete point-wise reply/information to the Complainant.
Now, being a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the facts of the case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act against the CPIO as it does not bear any mala fides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
The Commission further observes that there is a substantial delay in providing information to the Complainant on his RTI application. The then PIO should have ab-initio complied with the directions of the FAA but he failed to do so. The Respondent has informed that Shri P Balaraju is the then CPIO & ITO who Page 4 of 5 is caution to be careful in future. Further, no mala fide was observed on the part of the present PIO.
Hence, no further action is warranted in the matter.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 13, HYDERABAD, FIRST FLOOR, AYKAR BHAWAN, HYDERABAD 500004.Page 5 of 5
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)