Central Information Commission
Binita Devi vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 28 January, 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
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/CBODT/C/2019/641105
Binita Devi ...िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी /Respondents
M/o. Finance, Dept. of Revenue
North Block, New Delhi
CPIO
O/o. the Directorate of Income
Tax (HRD), New Delhi
CPIO
O/o. the Pr. Commissioner of
Income Tax, Jaipur, Rajasthan
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 02-11-2018 FA : Not on Record Complaint: 28-05-2019
CPIO : 28-03-2019 FAO : Not on Record Hearing: 06.11.2020
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Central Board of Direct Taxes seeking information on seven points, including, inter-alia:-
(i) Whether CBDT is issuing promotion orders to the post of ACIT from the post of ITO. Please provide copies of rules / judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court followed by CBDT for issuing promotion orders to the post of ACIT;Page 1 of 5
(ii) On the basis of sanctioned strength, please furnish percentage and no.s of post reserved for SC category and ST category in the cadre of ACIT/ DCIT;
(iii) Please provide copy of DoPT O.M. dated 30.09.2016 and 15.06.2018. Also provide information as to whether the same are being/ has been followed while conducting DPC to the cadre of ACIT / DCIT, etc.
2. Being aggrieved with the response given by the respondent, the complainant filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Hearing:
3. The complainant was represented through her representative Shri Vaibhav Nain who attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondents, Ms. Deepa Arora, ITO, CMD II, Shri T Murlidharan, ITO, Jaipur and Shri Yogesh Sharma, US, AD VI attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The complainant submitted her written submissions dated nil and the same has been taken on record. The respondents submitted their written submissions and the same has been taken on record.
5. The representative of the complainant submitted that the CBDT is the cadre controlling authority for the post of ACIT & DCIT. Thus all relevant records relating to the category wise sanctioned strength of ACIT & DCIT are maintained by it. Also, in view of OM dated 2.7.1997 of DoP&T, the CBDT is required to maintain a category wise roster for each cadre. Thus, the information sought by the complainant in respect of category wise sanctioned strength and working strength of ACsIT and DcsIT should have been provided by them. Instead, to avoid transparency and play foul, the application filed before CBDT was transferred to CPIO, O/o Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur who is cadre controlling authority only of Income-tax Officers and Inspectors of Rajasthan region only. The representative of the complainant submitted that the CPIO, O/o PCCIT, Rajasthan, Jaipur furnished part information vide its order dated 11.04.2019. The information was only in respect of ITOs and Inspectors of Rajasthan region. In respect of information related to ACIT / DCIT, the CPIO stated that the information is maintained by CBDT and cannot be provided by him. Thus, the CPIO, O/o PCCIT, Rajasthan, Jaipur has also confirmed that CBDT maintains this information and should have been provided by it. Instead, the RTI application of the complainant has been forwarded by CBDT to CPIO, O/o PCCIT, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Thus, the CBDT Page 2 of 5 has played a foul and has transferred the RTI to PCCIT, Jaipur deliberately avoiding to furnish information holding in its possession. This Act of the CPIO, CBDT is not in public interest. Further, the information sought in respect of ITOs and Inspectors should also have been provided by the CBDT or transferred to all 18 PCCsIT region in India with a direction to provide the information to the applicant. However, with a malafide intention, the same was not done by the CBDT. He stated that penalty should be imposed on it for acting foul with malafide intention.
6. The respondent, Shri T Murlidharan, ITO, Jaipur submitted that information as available on record has been provided to the complainant on her RTI application.
7. The respondent, Shri Yogesh Sharma, CPIO, US, AD VI submitted that that neither the RTI application dated 02.11.2018 nor had First Appeal received to the CPIO(Ad.VI), CBDT. However, it is seen that the said RTI application was originally addressed to Pr. Director General of Income Tax (HRD) which in turn transferred to the O/o. the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CCIT), Jaipur. The Pr. CCIT, Jaipur furnished their reply vide letter dated 28.03.2019 to the applicant which was not in the knowledge of CPIO (Ad.VI). He stated that they got to know about the present RTI application only after receipt of hearing notice from the Commission. Therefore, the information as available on record has been provided to the complainant.
8. The respondent, Ms. Deepa Arora, ITO, CMD II submitted that the RTI application of the complainant has been transferred by the then Nodal Officer, Directorate of Income Tax (HRD), New Delhi to the CPIO, O/o. Pr. CCIT, Jaipur and US, CBDT, AD VI, New Delhi for appropriate action.
Decision:
9. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the complainant has sought certain information as enumerated above which pertains to different PCCsIT region in India. The Commission observed that the Nodal CPIO, CBDT instead of providing information to the complainant has transferred it to the CPIO, O/o. Pr. CCIT, Jaipur and US, CBDT, AD VI, New Delhi which is not in order. The RTI application of the complainant is not related to only one place. The information has been received by the complainant only from the CPIO, Rajasthan. Information from other CPIOs has not been provided to him. The Commission observed that the Nodal CPIO, CBDT has without application of mind wrongly transferred the RTI application of the complainant.
Page 3 of 510. The Commission further noted that the complainant has filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act and in order to adjudicate any penalty provisions under Section 18 read with Section 20 of the RTI Act, any one of the elements of Section 18 should be fulfilled. The Commission observed that there is no malafide intention of the CPIO for wrong transfer of the RTI application. Therefore, no case of penalty has been made out. This Commission further observes that while examining the complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, the CIC has no jurisdiction to direct disclosure of any information. This legal position has been authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"30. It has been contended before us by the respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20.
However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide.
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
11. However, in the interest of justice, the Commission suggests the Nodal CPIO, CBDT to again examine the RTI application of the complainant and give appropriate reply/information to her as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The respondent is directed to serve a copy of this order to the Nodal CPIO, CBDT for appropriate action in the matter.
12. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
13. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
Page 4 of 514. 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
िदनां क / Date: 21-01-2021
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
M/o. Finance, Dept. of Revenue
CBDT, North Block, New Delhi-110001
2. CPIO
O/o. the Directorate of Income Tax (HRD)
RTI Cell, 2nd Floor, Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium
Gate No. 1, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
3. CPIO
O/o. the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
ITO (HQ), RTI Cell, NCR Building
Statue Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005
4. Binita Devi
Page 5 of 5