Central Information Commission
Adarsh Gupta vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 28 January, 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/CCITC/A/2020/124907
Adarsh Gupta ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Income Tax
Officer, RTI Cell, Ward-2,
Sector-12, Aayakar Bhawan,
Kamal, Haryana-132001 ..... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27/01/2022
Date of Decision : 27/01/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25/09/2019
CPIO replied on : 16/10/2019
First appeal filed on : 21/02/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 20/04/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16/06/2020
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.9.2019 seeking the following information-
"1. Please provide a certified copy of the latest Income Tax Return of the Firm Liberty Leathers having Pan No. AAAFL5271G and inform the partners of the 1 Firm presently as per the Information submitted by the firm in their income tax return. Also provide supporting documents."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 16.10.2019 denying the information under 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.2.2020. FAA's order dated 20.04.2020 dismissed the appeal as time barred.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by CA Vishal Goel through audio conference. Respondent: Vinay Malhotra, ITO & CPIO present through audio conference.
The CPIO submitted that the information was denied to the Appellant as being of personal to a third party since as per their records the Appellant did not figure as a partner of the averred firm.
Upon a query from the Commission regarding the delay caused in filing the First Appeal and as to whether the Appellant had provided any reason to the FAA for condoning the delay, the representative of the Appellant stated that he is not aware of this aspect of this case. Despite repeated queries from the Commission, the representative of the appellant did not plead the case or contest the submissions of the CPIO.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the FAA appropriately dismissed the First Appeal as time barred and there is no material on record to suggest that the Appellant ever sought for condonation of delay.
Having observed as above, the instant second appeal is not maintainable.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 2 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 3