Central Information Commission
Dr. Rajesha G. vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 14 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
ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/CCITB/A/2019/639970
Dr. Rajesha G ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, O/o. the Income Tax ... ितवादी /Respondent
Officer, Ward No.2, Mandya,
Karnataka
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 04-01-2019 FA : 22-02-2019 SA : 08-05-2019
CPIO : 08-02-2019 FAO : 08-04-2019 Hearing : 07-01-2021
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o. The Income Tax Officer, Mandya seeking following information:-
"After registering Tax Evasion Petition case against Mr. Venkatesh T., how many notices have been issued and for how many notices, you have received the reply?"
2. The CPIO responded on 08-02-2019. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 22-02-2019 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 08-04- 2019. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Dr. Rajesha G attended the hearing through audio conferencing. Ms. Hema Raj Shekhar participated in the hearing representing the Page 1 of 4 respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant submitted that the CPIO should be directed to clarify as to how many notices have been issued and for how many notices, reply has been received w.r.t. the tax evasion petition filed against Mr. Venkatesh T.
5. The respondent claimed exemption u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 on the premise that the appellant is seeking investigation details of Mr. Venkatesh T which is personal in nature.
Decision:
6. This Commission observes that the queries raised by the appellant such as 'how many notices have been issued and for how many notices, reply has been received' are clarificatory in nature which require analyses & interpretation of the assessment documents/TEP records. In view of this, the exemption claimed by the CPIO u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 is not tenable and therefore, he is cautioned to be more vigilant in future. It is noteworthy to mention that the CPIO is not supposed to interpret information; or to furnish replies to situational queries; or to furnish clarifications. Hence, the queries seeking answers and explanations from the CPIO are not covered within the definition of 'information' u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, the Commission refers to the definition of 'information' u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:-
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:-
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context, a reference is also made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, 2011 (8) SCC 497,wherein it was held as under:-
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to Page 2 of 4 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) v. The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:-
"Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
7. In light of the factual matrix of the instant appeal and the aforesaid case- laws, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the CPIO is not obliged to provide any clarification to the appellant with regard to his queries which are clarificatory in nature.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 3 of 49. 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
दनांक / Date 07-01-2021
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
O/o. the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 2
RTI Cell, Cauvery Park Road, Mandya
Karnataka-571401
2. Dr. Rajesha G.
Page 4 of 4