Central Information Commission
Smt. Veena Singhal vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 25 July, 2020
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 ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CCAKP/A/2018/161760
Smt. Veena Singhal ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO, O/o the Income Tax ... ितवादी /Respondent
Officer, Ward No. 2(5), Income
Tax Department, District
Dehradun, Uttarakhand.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 05.07.2018 FA : 20.08.2018 SA : 10.10.2018
CPIO : Not on record FAO : 07.09.2018 Hearing : 13.07.2020
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, Ward No. 2(5), Income Tax Department, District Dehradun, Uttarakhand. The appellant seeking information regarding action taken on her letter dated 25.11.2017, etc.
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 20.08.2018 requesting that the information should be provided to her. The first appellate authority was ordered on 07.09.2018 and disposed of her first appeal. She filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Page 1 of 6 Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to her and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant was represented through her husband Shri O P Singhal who attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Veerendra Kumar, Income Tax Officer attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 06.07.2020 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The representative of the appellant submitted that someone has hacked income tax online account of the appellant and she wants to know from which IP address the said account has been hacked. The representative of the appellant submitted that no information has been provided to the appellant.
6. The respondent submitted that the appellant has appealed that the CPIO has not addressed her grievance to provide the name and address of the persons who have viewed her ITRs. Further, the appellant has also filed grievance dated 25.11.2017 before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun. On 11.07.2018, the grievance of the appellant of the redressed wherein factual information has been provided to the appellant. After that, the appellant had filed RTI application seeking information regarding action taken on her said letter/grievance dated 25.11.2017. The CPIO has again informed the factual position in the matter to the appellant. The respondent further stated that the issue raised by the appellant does not pertain to the Income Tax department. The issue is related to the unauthorized accessing of the detail of ITRs and TDS from the e-filing website of the Income Tax Department. This could be access through the online account of the assessee held in the e-filing website of the department. If unauthorized person access the account of the assessee through e-filing portal, it is a matter of Page 2 of 6 unauthorized access on online account. Therefore, this matter pertains to cyber crime. Further, the grievance of the appellant was sent to the DSP, Cyber Crime Police Station, Gandhi Road, Dehradun.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the query of the appellant is related to unauthorized accessing of her detail of ITRs and TDS from the e-filing website of the Income Tax Department. The representative of the appellant has contested that the account of the appellant has been hacked and IP address of those persons who have hacked the account should be provided to the appellant. The Commission observed that no specific information has been sought by the appellant but has raised the grievance related to unauthorized access of her account. However, the respondent has given complete factual position to the appellant as per her RTI application and has also forwarded her grievance to the Cyber Crime Police Station, Dehradun.
8. The Commission further observed that grievance cannot be redressed under the provisions of RTI Act. The appellant may approach appropriate forum in order to redress her grievance. The Commission observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] Page 3 of 6 No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.Page 4 of 6
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.
9. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 5 of 611. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कुमार गु ता)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ता
सच
Information Commissioner (सू ना आयु त)
त
दनांक / Date 13.07.2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स$ािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO,
O/o the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 2(5),
ITO & Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell,
Income Tax Department, District Dehradun, Uttarakhand.
2. Smt. Veena Singhal, Page 6 of 6