Central Information Commission
Satya Narain Kaushik vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 1 August, 2018
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/CCITD/A/2017/140663-BJ
Mr. Satya Narain Kaushik
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & ITO Ward - 76(4),
Income Tax Department
Office of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 76(4),
Room no. 506, 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi - 110092
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 31.07.2018
Date of Decision : 01.08.2018
Date of RTI application 24.01.2017
CPIO's response 14.02.2017
Date of the First Appeal 17.03.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 13.04.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Second Appeal by the Commission 13.06.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points regarding whether the validity of the delivery of cheque/TDS certificate to UCO Bank was valid tender under the IT Act and the rules made thereunder given that it was not valid tender under Order 21 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, legal proposition giving retrospective operation to Sec. 194A(3)(ix) so as to include interest prior to the period 01.06.2003 when the provision was not in existence and such other details.
The CPIO vide its letter dated 14.02.2017 provided a point wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply of CPIO, the Appellant approached to the FAA. The FAA vide its letter dated 13.04.2017 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:Page 1 of 4
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Satya Narain Kaushik;
Respondent: Mr. Chander Mohan, CPIO/ITO Ward 76(4) and Mr. Srichandan Mohanty, Inspector; Mr. Nitin Ramtekkar, ITO;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that no satisfactory information was provided to him, till date. While referring to his written submission dated 24.07.2018, the Appellant stated that in a related matter in Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001729 the Commission had pronounced an order dated 25.06.2015 in compliance to which he took the grievance with UCO Bank who gave him the information sought. However, an evasive reply was given by the Respondent (IT) defeating the purpose of the Act and that penalty proceedings initiated under the IT Act against the NIACL for delay in issuing the TDS certificate was not proper/ sufficient in the absence of statutory provisions giving differential treatment to delay in issuing the TDS certificate and non-issue of the certificate. It was further submitted that in the present instance the CPIO arrived at the finding of lapse of duty on the part of NIACL and issued notice to show cause in penal proceedings u/s 272A of the IT Act, but till date no action was placed on record. Moreover, even though he was advised to furnish PAN details to NIACL but it was not committed if he would get the refund of TDS (wrongly deducted) and the manner of payment of refund alongwith interest. In its reply, the Respondent while referring to the earlier replies of CPIO/ FAA stated that he had recently been deputed as the CPIO and that subsequent to the receipt of the notice of hearing he had extensively dealt with the RTI queries and provided his point wise reply in the written submission dated 30.07.2018 a copy of which was delivered to the Appellant during the hearing. It was submitted that essentially the core issue related to grant of enhanced compensation with interest to the Appellant in compliance with the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO 399 of 1998 dated 14.03.2012 directing the Respondent New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (NIACL), to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest within 60 days (latest by 13 May 2012) with a further direction that on deposit of same it shall be released to the Appellant forthwith. As per the applicant, the NIACL deducted TDS of Rs. 18,870/- @ 20% without asking for PAN number from him without giving calculation sheet for the amount due arrived at and without inquiring further details. In the light of the above events, he had filed RTI application with CPIO Ward 76(4), New Delhi which was disposed off under Section-7 of the RTI Act, 2005. The First Appeal with JCIT Range 76 was also disposed off under Section 19(6) of the RTI Act, 2005 endorsing the reply of the CPIO. A point-wise response was given to the Appellant. Agitatingly, the Appellant contested the stand of the Respondent and impressed upon the Commission that his dues need to be settled forthwith. The Commission noted that in Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001729 dated 26.05.2015 this matter had already been adjudicated by the Commission wherein M/s New India Assurance Company, New Delhi was the Respondent. Its compliance was also carried out by the Respondent. The present subject matter related to the interpretation of the said order wherein the Appellant was claiming refund of the TDS amount with interest. The Respondent explained that in its written submission, they had given the detailed procedure to be followed by the Appellant as per extant guidelines.
Considering the sensitivity of the matter, the Commission directed the Respondent to facilitate the Sr. Citizen in effecting his dues on humanitarian considerations.
Page 2 of 4The Commission observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"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. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 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 forum. 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 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."
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had 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. 7 . In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as Page 3 of 4 expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2016.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the Respondent to facilitate redressal of the grievance of the Appellant within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order, as agreed.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 01.08.2018
Copy to:
1- The CCIT (TDS) Aaykar Bhawan, Laxmi Nagar, District Centre, New Delhi - 110092 Page 4 of 4