Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Ashok Chander Pandey vs Military Engineer Services on 10 January, 2024

                              के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                           बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

File No: CIC/MESER/A/2022/646377

Ashok Chander Pandey                                .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant


                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम

CPIO,
GARRISION ENGINEER, MILITARY
ENGINEER SERVICES, RANIKHET,
PIN 900473, C/O 56 APO                           ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent


Date of Hearing                     :    02-01-2024
Date of Decision                    :    08-01-2024


INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Vinod Kumar Tiwari


Relevant facts emerging from appeal:


RTI application filed on            :    22-10-2021
CPIO replied on                     :    11-11-2021
First appeal filed on               :    04-05-2022
First Appellate Authority's order   :    01-06-2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :    26-08-2022


Information sought

:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.10.2021 seeking the following information:

"i. A copy of AAO Army letter No AAO/ Army/ Gen Corr dt 25 Feb 21 which was forwarded to GE Ranikhet but not recd by me.

ii. GE Ranikhet letter No 1301/ IT/14/ E1 pay dt 09 Mar 21. iii. GE Ranikhet letter No 1301/ IT/16/ E1 pay dt 31 Mar 21. iv. Attested copy of form No 24 Q of G E Ranikhet for A Y 2014-15. v. Name of personal detail against whom the income tax is deducted in A Y 2014-15 in form no 24 Q. vi. Unstamped (without Round seal) form No 16 is received by me from GE Ranikhet, Please forward stamped form No 16 for onward submission."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 11.11.2021 stating as under:

"Please find enclosed area account officer army letter AA/ARMY/GEN CORR dated 25 Feb 2021 and this office letter no 1301/IT/14/E1PAY dated 09 Mar 2021. Details regarding amount deposited has been sought from AAO Dehradun vide this office letter no 1301/IT/16/E1PAY dated 31 March 2021. From 24Q will be issued since the details are obtained from area account office Dehradun."

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.05.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 01.06.2022, held as under:-

"In response to your ibid RTI request, the case was taken up with concerned authorities viz GE Ranikhet/AAO (Army) Dehradun.

In this regard copy of reply received from GE Ranikhet with its connected documents, received vide their letter No. 1301/IT/06/E1 Pay dated 01 Jun 2022 is fwd herewith for your further necessary action.

However, for further queries/requirement of any additional documents you can approach the undersigned."

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent Respondent: Ashutosh Kumar, PIO, appeared through NIC. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided the information held by them vide their letters dated 11.11.2021 and 01.06.2022. They also submitted that third party information were also made available to the appellant on receipt of reply from DAD Deptt.

Further, the respondent informed that the appellant had deposited Rs. 28,482 and Rs. 11056/- as penalty to Income Tax Department without seeking advice from the tax professional and intimating this office timely. A copy of the email dated 28.11.2020 is placed on record. They stated that they had also approached Income Tax Department Bangalore for reconciliation and refund vide their letter dated 09.03.2022 and a copy of which is placed on record. The respondent contended that realization of fund for income tax recovered as penalty may be done by Income Tax Department only. They are only liable to provide Form-16 against respective AY, which has already been provided to the appellant.

Decision:

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, notes that the respondent have replied to the RTI application, and the first appeal vide their letters dated 11.11.2021 and 01.06.2022 respectively. The respondent during the course of hearing submitted that the appellant's form 16 was not uploaded by Charted Accountant in Income Tax Department for the AY 2014-15. However, deductions were made from the appellant's account, and he had deposited penalty of Rs. 28482/- in the Income Tax Department. The respondent informed that besides providing the information, they wrote a letter to the Income Tax Department Bangalore for reconciliation and refund of the penalty amount imposed on the appellant. All the replies as well as correspondences made with the income tax department by the respondent are placed on records.

Moreover, the appellant neither filed any written objection nor presented himself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter. In view of the above, the Commission finds that appropriate reply has been given by the respondent and 3 further intervention is not required in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date 08-01-2024 Ashok Chander Pandey Hq 137, WKS Engrs., R.M.S Dimapur, C/o 99 APO Nagaland, Dimapur - 797112.