Central Information Commission
Himanshu Kumar vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 1 May, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CCITB/A/2024/600944
Himanshu Kumar .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Income Tax Officer (TPS)-1,
Office of the Commissioner of
Income Tax, (Admn. & TPS),
C.R. Building Queens Road,
Bengaluru - 5600014 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23.04.2025
Date of Decision : 30.04.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02.12.2023
CPIO replied on : 04.12.2023
First appeal filed on : 04.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 26.12.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application (online) dated 02.12.2023 seeking the following information:
"I am working as Senior Manager in Bank of Baroda, and paying my income tax from financial year 2022-23 to this year as well, under New Tax Regime. Recently, I have availed Leave Travel Reimbursement from the Bank to Travel from my Place of Posting in Bangalore to my Hometown Patna by Air. For the Page 1 of 6 purpose of reimbursement, I submitted my Air tickets and Boarding passes and accordingly the said ticket cost were reimbursed. However, on said reimbursement of Tickets, my Employer has charged TDS of Rs.30% as per my Tax Slab with 4% surcharge. In the given circumstance, I would like to get information from the Department that whether TDS is applicable on Leave Travel reimbursement on actual travel cost incurred by an Employee, taxable under New Tax Regime. (My net Taxable Income is 17.34 Lakhs ). If yes, kindly provide the legal provisions under which same is applicable."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 04.12.2023 stating as under:
"The information sought by the applicant is available in Public domain and does not fall under the purview of RTI Act, 2005, hence the RTI application is hereby returned."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 26.12.2023, held as under.
"The submissions of the Appellant have been carefully considered. The CPIO has replied that the information sought by the applicant is available in Public domain and does not fall under the purview of RTI Act 2005. Further, as per the RTI Act, 2005, information can be sought from the department which is held by the department. However, the information sought by the applicant is available in the public domain and does not fall under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005.
It is hereby drawn to the attention of the appellant that the information sought by you is available in the website of Income Tax Department at incometaxindia.gov.in Tax Laws and Rules Acts -Income Tax Act, also refer to related rules/ circulars/ notifications/ FAQs issued in this regard. Accordingly the appeal stands disposed."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Shri R. Aneel Thej, CPIO-cum-Income Tax Officer, attended the hearing through VC.
5. The Appellant stated that information sought is not available in public domain.
Page 2 of 66. The Respondent submitted that the information sought by the Appellant in the instant RTI Application is available on their website in public domain and accordingly a suitable reply has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 04.12.2023 and 26.12.2023.
7. The Appellant interjected and apprised the bench that the relevant information as sought in the RTI Application is not there on their website. If so, the Respondent in their replies has not provided the URL with complete path to access the same.
8. The Respondent interjected and submitted that their office will provide a revised reply by furnishing the requisite information pertaining to relevant rule/ notification/ circular to the Appellant.
9. A written submission has been received from Shri R. Aneel Thej, CPIO-cum- Income Tax Officer, vide letter dated 21.04.2025, stating as under:
"5. Further, the assessee raised an appeal under Subsection 3 of Section 19 of RTI Act, 2005 before the Hon'ble Central Information Commission. The ground of the appeal along with comments of the undersigned are furnished below: -
Ground No.1 The Reply given by the First Appellate Authority as well as the CPIO, mentioned above is not proper either on the facts or law. The information sought by the applicant with respect to deduction of tax in a particular head under a specific statutory provision is to be provided only by an expert in those department. A common man who suffered from such a tax deduction is not able to find out the relevant provisions of the law, which enables the concerned authority to deduct the tax.
Comments: - The information sought is already available in public domain and does not conform to the definition of information provided under sec. 2(f) of the RTI Act which is as under:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, circ 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 low for the time being in force;."
Further, the appellant has stated that the information is to be provided only by an expert in those department. In this connection, 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 was held as under:
Page 3 of 635. 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. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under clauses (f) and (1) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority; and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non available information and then furnish it to an applicant. 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."
Ground No.2: Without understanding my request under the RTI Act, which is a beneficial legislation for the benefit of the public at large, the CPIO and the appellate Authority has rejected my application merely on the ground that, the information is available in the Public Domain is illegal, improper and against the very intent of the legislature.
Comments: - Under the Right to information (RTI) Act, 2005, if the requested information is already available in the public domain, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) can deny the request by stating that the information is already accessible to the public. In this connection, kind attention is drawn to the judgement of the Hon'ble CIC dated 11/08/2016 in Case No. CIC/BS/C/2014/000103/11052 (N. Syamasundaran Vs. TRAI, New Delhi )wherein it is held that:
"certain information is placed in public domain accessible to the citizen either freely or on payment of a pre-determined price, that information cannot be said to be 'held' or 'under the control of the public authority and, thus would cease to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. This case does not meet the requirement of section 20(1) of the RTI Act regarding the CPIO not furnishing information within the stipulated time without any reasonable cause". There is also nothing to establish that the CPIO acted in a malafide manner.
In the Order u/s 19(6) of RTI Act dated 26/12/2023 issued by the First Appellate Authority, the appellant was communicated that "information sought is available in the website of Income Tax Department at incometaxindia.gov.in Tax Laws and Rules Acts -Income Tax Act, also refer to related rules/circulars/notifications/FAQs issued in this regard". Further, the details of 'payments covered under the TDS mechanism and the rates of deduction of tox as source' is available as part of 'FAQs on TDS' section in the above mentioned website. Hence the information sought by the appellant in this case is already placed in public domain accessible to the citizen freely and hence Page 4 of 6 cannot be said to be 'held' or 'under the control of the public authority and, thus would cease to be an information accessible under the RTI Act, as per the judgement of Hon'ble CIC cited supra.
Ground No.3: The Income Tax Department is the competent authority to give the information to the applicant with respect to the relevant provision under which the tax can be deducted on Leave Travel reimbursement on actual travel cost incurred by an Employee taxable under New Tax Regime. It is pertinent to say that, such an information will no way adversely affect the income tax department and there will not be any loss or damages to the said department.
By rejecting my RTI application on a ground of availability of the information in the Public Domain, the CPIO and the Appellate Authority were committed great mistake and infringed the Right of the applicant, which is envisaged and ensured under the Right To Information Act.
Comments:-Ground is similar to ground no.1 & 2 above. Hence response furnished to ground no. 182 is applicable for this ground."
Decision:
10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the PIO in his reply dated 04.12.2023 has not provided the URL with complete path to the Appellant to access the relevant information as sought in the RTI Application. The Respondent during the hearing has agreed to provide a revised reply by furnishing the requisite information pertaining to relevant rule/ notification/ circular to the Appellant. Accordingly, the CPIO is directed to fulfil his commitment made during the hearing by providing the requisite information pertaining to relevant rule/ notification/ circular to the Appellant, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The FAA is directed to ensure compliance.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Page 5 of 6 Copy To:
The FAA, Joint Director Systems, Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Admn. & TPS), C.R. Building Queens Road, Bengaluru - 5600014 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)