Central Information Commission
Rajeshbhai Parshotambhai Kamani vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 11 February, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
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/CCITA/A/2019/126133
Rajeshbhai Parshotambhai ... अपीलकता/Appellant
Kamani
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी /Respondent
O/o. the Income Tax Officer
Ward No. 1, Bardoli, Gujarat
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 20-02-2019 FA : 25-03-2019 SA : 31-05-2019
CPIO : 13-03-2019 FAO : 25-04-2019 Hearing : 04-02-2021
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 Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 1, Bardoli, Gujarat, seeking following information:-
1. Date of incorporation (Birth) of our partnership firm, M/s.
Fashion Fabrics (incorporation in the year 1990), having PAN:
AAAFF4818K;
2. Copy of returns of income of partnership firm, M/s. Fashion Fabrics, PAN:AAAFF48I8K from the year 2000 to 2017 (out of which, available Returns of Income with the Income-tax Department as per Income-tax Rules) along with copy of balance-sheet;
3. Copy of last return of income filed by M/s. Fashion Fabrics, partnership firm under PAN:AAAFF481 8K along with copy of balance sheet, etc. Page 1 of 3
2. The CPIO responded on 13-03-2019. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 25-03-2019 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 25- 04-2019. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to impose penalty on CPIO of Rs. 250 /- per day from the date of application, compensate the applicant for the loss of time and money in filing appeal to FA and second appeal to CIC, and mental detriment suffered in this regard and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Rajeshbhai Parshotambhai Kamani attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent, Mr. SC Baluni, also attended the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant submitted his written submissions dated 15.01.2021 and the same has been taken on record. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 21.01.2021 and the same has been taken on record.
5. On query from the Commission, the appellant submitted that he is a partner in the firm namely M/s. Fashion Fabrics and even till date he is the partner in the said firm. The appellant submitted that he is also having relevant documents in order to prove that he is the partner in the firm. The appellant stated that the respondent has wrongly denied the information to him under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. He stated that he is entitled to obtain this information, being a partner of the firm.
6. The respondent informed the Commission that as per the records, appellant is not the partner of the firm and hence denied information sought under section 8 (1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore appropriate reply have already been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 13-03-2019.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant is aggrieved that being a partner of the firm namely M/s. Fashion Fabrics, the information was denied to him by the respondent public authority. On the other hand, the respondent submitted that as per their records, the appellant is not a partner of the firm. On this, the appellant contested that he owns the relevant documents which proves that he is a partner of the said firm. The Commission is of the view that if the appellant is the partner of the firm then he is entitled to obtain the information as sought by him in his RTI application dated 20.02.2019. Else, the information sought is personal information of third party, which is exempted from disclosure Page 2 of 3 under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Commission directs the respondent to give an opportunity to the appellant to prove his partnership in the said firm and if on the satisfaction of the respondent, complete information as sought in the RTI application should be provided to him, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Otherwise, a categorical reply in this regard should be provided to the appellant.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. 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 : 04-02-2021
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 Income Tax Officer,
Ward No. 1, 2nd Floor, BSNL Building
Opp. Jalaram Temple Station Road
Bardoli, Gujarat-394601
2. Rajeshbhai Parshotambhai Kamani
Page 3 of 3