Central Information Commission
R K Jain vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 26 December, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/RM/C/2014/000570/BS/11973
December 22, 2016
Relevant Facts emerging from the Complaint:
Complainant : Mr. R K Jain
1512-B Bhishm Pitamah Marg,
Wazir Nagar, New Delhi 110003
Respondent : CPIO/JDIT (Inv.)
Department of Income Tax,
Income Tax Settlement Commission,
4th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan,
Khan Market, New Delhi - 110003
CPIO / Administrative Office,
Department of Income Tax,
Income Tax Settlement Commission,
4th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan,
Khan Market, New Delhi - 110003
RTI application dated : 20/03/2014
First Appeal filed on : 29/04/2014
Complaint dated : 04/07/2014
Information sought:
(A) Provide details of implementation of the direction issued in para 1.4.1 of the Guidelines enclosed with Office Memoranda No. 1/6/2011-IR, dated 15th April 2013 of the DOPT regarding proactive disclosure of RTI applications, appeals received and their responses on the website of the ITSC with search facility based on keyword. (B) Provide copy of the action taken report submitted by ITSC on the compliance of the guidelines issued under Office Memoranda No. 1/6/2011-IR, dated 15th April 2013 of DOPT, as required under para 4.3 of the said guidelines.
(C) Provide date wise details of the action taken by ITSC in relation to paragraph 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 of the aforesaid guidelines of the DOPT and copies of all notesheets & correspondence of the aforesaid guidelines of the DOPT and copies of all note sheets & correspondence.
(D) Provide date wise details of the compliance of para 3.6 of the aforesaid guidelines. (E) Provide list of directions given in the aforesaid guidelines which have not so far been implemented/operationalised by ITSC till 17/10/2013 and expected date by which each one of them is expected to be implemented.
Grounds for the Complaint:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.Page 1 of 3
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Complainant: Mr. R K Jain Respondent: Ms. Rajni Sharma CPIO The applicant stated that it can be seen from the records that no reply whatsoever was sent by the CPIO in response to his RTI application. He pressed for initiating penal proceeding against the CPIO. The CPIO stated that the then CPIO Mr. D K Sonker has been relieved from the department.
Interim Decision notice:
By not furnishing any information/reply the concerned CPIO Shri D K Sonker has rendered himself liable for imposition of penalty in terms of the provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. However, before imposing any such penalty, we would like to give an opportunity to Shri Sonkar to explain whether he had any reasonable cause for not furnishing any reply to the applicant's RTI application. Accordingly, we direct Shri Sonker to submit his written explanation as aforesaid to the Commission on or before 15/12/2016 by post and also by e-mail at [email protected]. Shri Sonker is further directed to appear before the Commission in person on 22/12/2016 at 4.00 PM. It should be carefully noted that in case Shri Sonker fails to appear/provide any satisfactory reply the Commission may proceed to impose penalty on him.
The CPIO should forward this interim order to Shri D K Sonker forthwith.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Complainant: -------------
Respondent: Mr. D K Sonkar The then CPIO Mr. D K Sonker vide his written submissions dated 13/12/2016 has informed that in addition to his duties as CPIO he was working as Administrative Officer and had to perform the duties relating to administrative, establishment, budget and accounts matters. In addition to this, he was responsible for receipt of the application filed by assessees for settlement and for signing notices, orders and other documents on behalf of the Commission. He has submitted that there were two additional benches working in the same building and has explained the process for settlement. It is his say that he was coordinating with the Vice-Chairmen and Members of the additional benches for smooth functioning. Mr. Sonker states that RTI application was received towards the end of financial year 2013-14 and lot of work had to be disposed of prior to completion of the year. He informs that a large number of dak /letters/correspondence were received for disposal and has given statistics to support his submissions. He claims that lots of efforts were made to search DoPT Memorandum but it appears that the same was not received in the Commission due to which no action could be taken to implement the instructions.
Mr. Sonker has stated that on receipt of first appeal he submitted a detailed para wise reply to the FAA inter-alia informing him non-receipt of DoPT Memorandum and the FAA passed his order dated 20/06/2014 based on the said reply.
During the hearing Shri D K Sonker reiterated that based on his note dated 01/06/2014 the FAA passed order dated 20/06/2014 inter alia mentioning non-receipt of DoPT memorandum. He informed that he was relieved from the Settlement Commission on 30/06/2014. He vehemently pleaded that FAA has furnished the information to the applicant as then as available on record hence penalty may be condoned.Page 2 of 3
Decision Notice:
The crux of the then CPIO's submission is that he was overloaded with work and DoPT memorandum was not received in the department. In his written as well as oral submissions the then CPIO has pleaded that based on his note dated 01/06/2014 the FAA passed an order on 20/06/2014 noting non-receipt of DoPT memorandum and thus furnished the information to the applicant as then as available on record. He has informed that he was relieved from the Settlement Commission on 30/06/2014.
Taking a view and accepting the aforesaid submissions of Shri D K Sonker the fact still remains that information was provided to the applicant only on 20/06/2014. The RTI application was received on 25/03/2014 and information was furnished on 20/06/2014 i.e. after 55 days. Thus, there is delay of 25 days in furnishing the information for which no reasonable cause is explained. Hence, in terms of the provisions of Section 20(1) of RTI Act penalty of Rs. 6250/- (i.e. Rs.250x25 days) is levyable on Shri Sonker.
The Commission directs Income Tax Settlement Commission to ensure that the amount of Rs.6250/- is recovered from the then CPIO Mr. D.K. Sonker and remit the same by a demand draft or a Banker's Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri S. P. Beck, Joint Secretary, Central Information Commission, August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place, R K Puram New Delhi 110066.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Copy to Shri S.P. Beck Joint Secretary, Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi- 110066 Page 3 of 3