Central Information Commission
Jagdish Prasad Gahlot vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 2 November, 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/CCITJ/A/2017/153178-BJ
Mr. Jagdish Prasad Gahlot
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO
Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (Hqrs)
Office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajasthan
Central Revenue Building, B D Road
Jaipur - 302001
2. CPIO
ITO, Ward - 2(1), Udaipur
Office of the ITO, Ward - 2(1), 6
New Fathepura
Udaipur - 313001
3. CPIO
ITO (Exemptions)
Office of the ITO (Exemption),
6 New Fathepura
Udaipur - 313001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02.11.2018
Date of Decision : 02.11.2018
Date of RTI application 26.11.2014
CPIO's response 01.12.2014,
10.12.2014,
23.03.2015 and
20.05.2015
Date of the First Appeal 21.03.2015
First Appellate Authority's response 13.05.2015
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 31.07.2017
ORDER
FACTS Page 1 of 10 The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the documents submitted by Mahavir International Foundation Trust for claiming exemption u/s 80G of the IT Act, 1961, details of the officers/ office bearers of the said Trust, reason for claiming exemption, certificate of registration under the Societies Act and issues related thereto. The CPIO and Asst. CIT (HQ), O/o the PCIT, Jaipur, vide its letter dated 01.12.2014 transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, O/o the CCIT, Udaipur u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005. Subsequently, the Asst. CIT (Admn), Udaipur vide its letter dated 10.12.2014 transferred the application to the CPIO, O/o the CIT, Udaipur. Thereafter, vide letter dated 23.03.2015, the CPIO and ITO, Ward 2 (1), Udaipur, denied disclosure of information as per Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 13.05.2015 directed the CPIO to re-examine the RTI application and provide information as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. In compliance with the decision of the FAA, the CPIO and ITO, Ward 2 (1), Udaipur, vide its letter dated 20.05.2015 addressed to the ITO (Exemption) Udaipur stated that jurisdiction of trusts fell within the purview of Addl CIT as per notification dated 15.11.2014 hence the application was transferred to the O/o the Pr. CIT, Udaipur vide letter dated 15.05.2015.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Jagdish Prasad Gahlot and Mr. M. N. Purohit (Adv.) through VC; Respondent: Mr. Pradeep Singh, Inspector, Jaipur, Mr. Shabeer Mohammed, ITO Ward 2 (1), Udaipur and Mr. K. K. Kumawat, ITO (Exmp.), Udaipur through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that the desired information was not provided to him despite the order of the FAA dated 13.05.2015 to provide information as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Explaining that the information was sought by him regarding the Mahavir International Foundation Trust which was claiming exemption under Section 80G of the IT Act, 1961, the Appellant submitted that the ITO Ward 2(1) did not comply with the FAA's order, till date. In its reply, the Respondent (Ward 2 (1), Udaipur), stated that in compliance with the order of the FAA, they had transferred the application to ITO (Exemptions) Udaipur since they were the concerned jurisdictional authority to deal with the matter at that time. The Respondent (ITO (Exemption), Udaipur) in turn submitted that the PAN of Mahavir International Foundation Trust lied with the Exemption, Ward (1), Jaipur hence in compliance with the FAAs order, the application was transferred to them. The Respondent (Jaipur) stated that at the time when the RTI application was filed, the PAN card of the Trust fell within the Jurisdiction of Udaipur Ward 2(1) hence the application was transferred to the O/o the CCIT, Udaipur u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005. On being queried by the Commission regarding whether the Trust was claiming exemption u/s 80G of IT Act, 1961, the Respondent at Jaipur and Udaipur replied in the affirmative. Having heard both the parties and on perusal of available records, the Commission was appalled to learn about the manner in which the entire matter was dealt by the Respondent since the RTI application shuttled from one authority to another without any specific reply on the contents of the RTI application. Even during the hearing, the Respondent at Jaipur and Udaipur skirted around the issue and apportioned the responsibility on each other for furnishing the information in the matter. In this context, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi Page 2 of 10 High Court in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 wherein it was held as under:
"The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure."
A reference was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.P Agrawal v. Union of India-2013(287) ELT25(Del.) wherein it was held as under:
7."it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken". The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only. The Appellate Authority is not the custodian of the information or the document. It is only a statutory authority to take a decision on an appeal with regard the tenability or otherwise of the action of the CPIO and, therefore, there is a conscious omission in making the Appellate Authority liable for a penal action under Section 20 of the RTI Act and if that be the scheme of the Act and the legislative intention, we see no error in the order passed by the learned writ Court warranting reconsideration."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the OM No.4/9/2008-IR dated 24.06.2008 issued by the DoP&T on the Subject "Courteous behavior with the persons seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005" wherein it was stated as under:
"The Central Information Commission has brought to the notice of this Department that officers of some of the public authorities do not behave properly with the persons who seek information under the RTI Act. The undersigned is directed to say that the responsibility of a public authority and its public information officers (PIO) is not confined to furnish information but also to provide necessary help to the information seeker, wherever necessary. While providing information or rendering help to a person, it is important to be courteous to the information seeker and to respect his dignity."
The Commission also referred to the OM No. 1/32/2007-IR dated 14.11.2007 wherein while prescribing for creation of a nodal authority for dealing with RTI applications, it was stated as under:
"It is, therefore, requested that all public authorities with more than one PIO should create a central point within the organisation where all the RTI applications and the Page 3 of 10 appeals addressed to the First Appellate Authorities may be received. An officer should be made responsible to ensure that all the RTI applications/ appeals received at the central point are sent to the concerned Public Information Officers/ Appellate Authorities, on the same day. For instance, the RTI applications/ appeals may be received in the Receipt and Issue Section/ Central Registry Section of the Ministry/ Department/ Organisation/ Agency and distributed to the concerned PIOs/ Appellate Authorities. The R&I/CR Section may maintain a separate register for the purpose. The Officer-in-charge/ Branch Officer of the Section may ensure that the applications/ appeals received are distributed the same day."
As regards the information sought by the Appellant, the Commission took note of the issue regarding the "personal information" held by an individual in its personal capacity and the personal information held by the entities/corporations/trusts in their private capacity. In this context, a reference was drawn on the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in Naresh Trehan vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Ors.( 2015) 216 DLT 156 wherein it was held:
"20. It has been contended by the petitioners that the expression "personal information"
must also extend to information relating to corporate entities. Inasmuch as they may also fall within the definition of expression "person" under the General Clauses Act, 1897 as well as under the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, I am unable to accept this contention for the reason that the expression "personal information" as used in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the Act has to be read in the context of information relating to an individual. A plain reading of the aforesaid clause would indicate that the expression "personal information" is linked with "invasion of privacy of the individual". The use of the word "the" before the word "individual" immediately links the same with the expression "personal information"
21. Black's law dictionary, sixth edition, inter alia, defines the word "personal" as under:- "The word "personal" means appertaining to the person; belonging to an individual; limited to the person; having the nature or partaking of the qualities of human beings, or of movable property."
23. In my view, the aforesaid reasoning would also be applicable to the expression "personal" used in Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The expression 'individual' must be construed in an expansive sense and would include a body of individuals. The said exemption would be available even to unincorporated entities as also private, closely held undertaking which are in substance alter egos of their shareholders. However, the expression individual cannot be used as a synonym for the expression 'person'. Under the General Clauses Act, 1897 a person is defined to "include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not". Thus, whereas a person would include an individual as well as incorporated entities and artificial persons, the expression 'individual' cannot be interpreted to include such entities. The context in which, the expression "personal information" is used would also exclude it application to large widely held corporations. While, confidential information of a corporation is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) (d) of the Act, there is no scope to exclude other information relating to such corporations under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act as the concept of a personal information cannot in ordinary language be understood to mean information pertaining to a public corporation."
Page 4 of 1022. A perusal of the above definition also indicates that the ordinary usage of the word "personal" is in the context of an individual human being and not a corporate entity. The U.S. Supreme Court has also interpreted the expression "personal" to be used in the context of an individual human being and not a corporate entity. In the case of Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T Inc: 2011 US LEXIS 1899 the US Supreme Court considered the meaning of the expression "personal privacy" in the context of the Freedom of Information Act, which required Federal Agencies to make certain records and documents publically available on request. Such disclosure was exempt if the records "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy". The U.S. Supreme Court held that the expression "Personal" used in the aforesaid context could not be extended to corporations because the word "personal" ordinarily refers to individuals. The Court held that the expression "personal" must be given its ordinary meaning. The relevant extract of the said judgment is as under:
"Person" is a defined term in the statute; "personal" is not. When a statute does not define a term, we typically "give the phrase its ordinary meaning," [Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S., 559 U.S. 133, 130 S. Ct. 1265, 176 L. Ed. 2d 1, 8 (2010)]. "Personal"
ordinarily refers to individuals. We do not usually speak of personal characteristics, personal effects, personal correspondence, personal influence, or personal tragedy as referring to corporations or other artificial entities. This is not to say that corporations do not have correspondence, influence, or tragedies of their own, only that we do not use the word "personal" to describe them. Certainly, if the chief executive officer of a corporation approached the chief financial officer and said, "I have something personal to tell you," we would not assume the CEO was about to discuss company business. Responding to a request for information, an individual might say, "that's personal." A company spokesman, when asked for information about the company, would not. In fact, we often use the word "personal" to mean precisely the opposite of business related: We speak of personal expenses and business expenses, personal life and work life, personal opinion and a company's view."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Rajendra Vasantlal Shah vs. Central Information Commissioner and Ors. AIR 2011 Guj 70 had observed that any statutory body/ Institution/association meant to serve public good cannot claim to be working in a fiduciary capacity, and held as under:
"8.4. Respondent No. 4 is a religious charitable Trust, functioning under the Scheme formulated by the District Court, having considerable public importance and registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, as a religious charitable Trust. Considering its nature and activities, emerging from the objects of the Trust, it can be stated that disclosure of such information is in relation to any public interest of activity. The Trust is engaged, in public activities, disclosure of its statements and accounts of income-tax returns and assessments orders cannot be withheld under Section 8(1)(e) or (j)of the R.T.I. Act."
It was observed that the aforementioned decision was challenged before the a larger bench in LPA No. 49 of 2012 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7538 of 2010 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 368 of 2012 In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 49 of 2012, dated 19.01.2012, wherein the Division bench had upheld the order of the Single Bench and dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal.
Page 5 of 10Moreover, the Commission draws reference to the observations made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 7265 OF 2007 (Date of Decision: 25th September, 2009) wherein the Court has clarified the definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act,2005 and held as under:
8. "Information as defined in Section 2(f) means details or material available with the public authority. The later portion of Section 2(f) expands the definition to include details or material which can be accessed under any other law from others. The two definitions have to be read harmoniously. The term ―held by or under the control of any public authority in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act has to be read in a manner that it effectuates and is in harmony with the definition of the term ―information as defined in Section 2(f). The said expression used in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act should not be read in a manner that it negates or nullifies definition of the term ―information in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It is well settled that an interpretation which renders another provision or part thereof redundant or superfluous should be avoided. Information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act includes in its ambit, the information relating to any private body which can be accessed by public authority under any law for the time being in force. Therefore, if a public authority has a right and is entitled to access information from a private body, under any other law, it is ―information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The term ―held by the or under the control of the public authority used in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act will include information which the public authority is entitled to access under any other law from a private body.
13. Information available with the public authority falls within section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The last part of section 2 (f) broadens the scope of the term information' to include information which is not available, but can be accessed by the public authority from a private authority. Such information relating to a private body should be accessible to the public authority under any other law. Therefore, section 2(f) of the RTI Act requires examination of the relevant statute or law, as broadly understood, under which a public authority can access information from a private body. If law or statute permits and allows the public authority to access the information relating to a private body, it will fall within the four corners of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Commission referred to the observations made by Hon'ble Courts in the light of disclosure of information in "public interest", keeping in view the true spirit behind the promulgation of the RTI Act, 2005, which are as under:
The Commission further referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 wherein while explaining the term "Public Interest" held:
"22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants Page 6 of 10 recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal (decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the following texts for defining the meaning of "public interest', which is stated as under:
"Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus:
"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :
Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."
In Mardia Chemical Limited v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while considering the validity of SARFAESI Act and recovery of non-performing assets by banks and financial institutions in India, recognised the significance of Public Interest and had held as under :
".............Public interest has always been considered to be above the private interest. Interest of an individual may, to some extent, be affected but it cannot have the potential of taking over the public interest having an impact in the socio-economic drive of the country..........."
Every action of a Public Authority is expected to be carried out in Public Interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi, etc vs. State of UP and Ors., 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 625 dated 20.09.1990 wherein it had been held as under:
"Private parties are concerned only with their personal interest whereas the State while exercising its powers and discharging its functions, acts indubitably, as is expected of it, for public good and in public interest. The impact of every State action is also on public interest."
Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of LIC of India vs. Consumer Education and Research Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811 dated 10.05.1995 had held as under:
"Every action of the public authority or the person acting in public interest or its acts give rise to public element, should be guided by public interest. It is the exercise of the public power or action hedged with public element becomes open to challenge."
The High Court of Bombay in Shonkh Technology International Ltd. v. State Information Commission Maharashtra Konkan Region, Appellate Authority and United Telecom Limited v. State Information Commission Maharashtra Konkan Region and Ors., W.P. Nos. 2912 and 3137 of 2011 decided on 01.07.2011 held as under
"The RTI Act is an Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. The preamble of the RTI Act itself refers to this aspect and the Page 7 of 10 constitutional principles enshrined in several articles of the Constitution. It is very clearly postulated that democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold the Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. Therefore, the RTI Act seeks to harmonize these conflicting interests while preserving the paramount nature of democratic ideals."
Moreover, the purpose and object of the promulgation of the RTI Act, 2005 was to make the public authorities more transparent and accountable to the public and to provide freedom to every citizen to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, consistent with public interest, in order to promote openness, transparency and accountability in administration and in relation to matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. It is noted that certain issues have been raised in the RTI application which relate to claiming exemption u/s 80G of the IT Act. Moreover, during the course of the hearing it was categorically stated by the Respondent that several exemptions/ benefits were claimed by the Trust under the said Act. Therefore it is apparent that the matter certainly involved larger public interest since the Government was granting exemptions to the Third Party from payment of taxes hence there ought to exist transparency and accountability on the activities of the Third Party.
Also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of R.B.I. and Ors. V. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015, while dealing with significance of free flow of information had stated as under:
"The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary that people have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for 'open governance' which is a foundation of democracy."
The Commission further referred to the full bench decision of the CIC in File No.CIC/LS/A/2009/00190 dated 09.03.2010 wherein the CIC had decided on the issue of disclosure of information by the public charitable trusts as under:
10. "We have given a serious thought to the matter. We have also taken note of the pre-
amble of the RTI Act which aims at promoting transparency and accountability in the working of the every Public Authority. In this context, it would be apt to advert to sub section 15 of section 2 of the IT Act which defines "charitable purpose". This sub section is extracted below :- "15. 'Charitable purpose' includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief and advancement of any other object of general public utility.
Needless to say, avowed purpose for which these institutions/entities come into existence is charity. Charity and secrecy are contradiction in terms. Any charitable institution should have no secrets and should be open to public for all purposes, including its finances. In other words, in our opinion, it will be in the larger public interest if the identity of the charitable trusts/institutions/entities which are granted exemption from Page 8 of 10 income tax under the statutory provisions are placed in the public domain. Hence, in exercise of powers under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, we hereby recommend that the identity of the charitable trusts/institutions/entities which have been granted exemption from income tax under section 10 & under section 11/12 of the Income Tax Act is placed in public domain by way of suo-motu disclosure by the CBDT in terms of section 4(1)(b) r/w section 4(2) of the RTI Act."
The above mentioned decision of the CIC had been referred in File no.CIC/RM/A/2014/004628 (dated 23.12.2016) File no. CIC/RM/A/2014/ 003758/BS/9478 (dated 11.01.2016) and File No.CIC/DS/A/2012 /000688/RM (dated 10.04.2013).
The Commission felt that the Supreme objective/ motive with which the Central/ State Information Commission were constituted were to set out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. In the light of the preamble of the RTI Act, 2005 there are several exemptions carved out under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 which can be used by a Public Authority to deny information depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The purpose of the RTI Act, 2005 is transparency and accountability in the functioning of entities which impact citizens' daily lives. Recognizing the significance of the RTI Act, 2005 in empowering people with the means to scrutinize government action, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its judgment delivered by Justice Ravindra Bhat in Indian Olympic Association -Vs- Veerish Malik and others(WP)(C) No. 876/2007 had held as below:-
"The Act marks a legislative milestone in the post independence era to further democracy. It empowers citizens and information applicants to demand and be supplied with information about public records. Parliamentary endeavor is to extend it also to public authorities which impact citizens daily lives. The Act mandates disclosure of all manner of information and abolishes the concept of locus standi of the information applicant; no justification for applying (for information) is necessary; decisions and decision making processes, which affect lives of individuals and groups of citizens are now open to examination. Parliamentary intention apparently was to empower people with the means to scrutinize government and public processes, and ensure transparency. At the same time, the need of society at large, and Governments as well as individuals in particular, to ensure that sensitive information is kept out of bounds have also been accommodated under the Act."
The Commission also observed that in a similar matter where information regarding charitable trusts claiming exemption u/s 12A of the IT Act, 1961 was sought, the Division Bench of the Commission in Appeal No. in Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/001091-BJ-Final dated 05.01.2018 while observing that the matter certainly involved larger public interest since the Government was granting exemptions to the Third Party from payment of taxes allowed for disclosure of information.
During the hearing the Commission was alarmed at the administrative lacunae and constraints exhibited by the Respondent Public Authority for the implementation of the RTI Act, 2005 that required urgent remedial action. The Commission was appalled to learn about the manner in which the RTI applications were handled by the Respondent Public Authority which indicated that there was complete negligence and laxity in the Public Authority in dealing with the RTI matters. It was abundantly clear that such matters were being ignored and set aside without Page 9 of 10 application of mind which reflected disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. It was felt that the conduct of Respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information. During the hearing, the CPIO was unable to give any reasons for the delay in providing the information.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs, the Commission instructs the Pr. CCIT, Jaipur and CCIT, Udaipur to constitute a Committee led by an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to inquire into the matter and submit its report fixing responsibility on the delinquent officer together with the information sought by the Appellant under intimation to the Commission within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission noted with concern about the recalcitrant attitude of the CPIOs who had dealt with the RTI application in a casual and callous manner. The CPIOs (Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (Hqrs), Jaipur, ITO, Ward 2(1), Udaipur and ITO (Exemptions) Udaipur) are therefore cautioned to exercise due care in future to ensure that correct and complete information is furnished timely to the RTI applicant(s) in-line with the spirit of the Act, failing which penal proceedings under Section 20 shall be initiated.
The Appeal stands disposed with the above direction.
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: 02.11.2018
Copy to:
1- Secretary, Department of Revenue, M/o Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 2- Chairman, CBDT, Department of Revenue, M/o Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 3- The Pr. CCIT, Jaipur, Central Revenue Building, B.D. Road, Jaipur 302001 4- The CCIT, Udaipur, 6, New Fatehpura, Udaipur - 313001 Page 10 of 10