Central Information Commission
Y. Akbar Ahmed vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 19 May, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CCACH/A/2020/106551
Y. Akbar Ahmed ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o the Assistant Director of
Income Tax (Investigation), RTI Cell,
CRU, Unit 1(4), 2nd Floor, New Building,
New No 46, Old No. 108, Uthamar Gandhi
Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600034,
Tamil Nadu. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16/02/2022
Date of Decision : 11/05/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24/11/2020
CPIO replied on : 29/12/2020
First appeal filed on : 05/01/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 01/02/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 04/02/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.11.2020 seeking the following information;1
1. Please Provide Me with Detailed information and Records/Letters/Reports/Copies Regarding,
a) The Action Taken on My Complaint dated 25.04.2017,
b) The Present Status of My Complaint Dated 25.04.2017,
c) How Much More Time is required by the Investigating officer to Dispose of My Complaint dated 25.04.2017, Received by the Director (Investigations), Income Tax office from the office of the Additional Director General of Income-Tax (Vigilance) South, at Aayakar Bhawan, 8th Floor, 121, M.G Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai -
600 034 ?
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 29.12.2020 stating that information sought cannot be provided as per Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.01.2021. FAA's order dated 01.02.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: J. Nagaraj, Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv) & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as his RTI Application concerns allegations of corruption and in two cases related to the same complaints, the Commission has ordered relief vide File Nos. CIC/CCACH/C/2019/147637 and CIC/CCACH/C/2019/113787 decided on 24.05.2021 and 24.11.2020, respectively. He further alleged that the Respondent office has not even complied with the averred orders till date.
The CPIO reiterated the denial of the information under Section 24 of the RTI Act and argued that the matter does not pertain to any allegations of corruption.
Decision:
2The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the Appellant appears to have misled the bench by relying on the decisions in File Nos. CIC/CCACH/C/2019/147637 and CIC/CCACH/C/2019/113787 in as much as there is no determination of any allegation of corruption or a reference made to the exemption of Section 24 of the RTI Act in either of the averred decisions. In both the cases, the issue under consideration was the claim of non-receipt of the complaint of 25.04.2017 by the Income Tax authorities.
Further, as for the subject matter of the complaint under reference, the Appellant has speculated against unaccounted wealth of two office bearers of Jumma Masjid Committee in connivance with the Tamilnadu Wakf Board, however, considering the strength of the material on record relating to the averred complaint of the Appellant, the Commission is not inclined to accept any allegation of corruption pertinent in the matter.
Having observed as above, no scope of relief is pertinent in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 3