Central Information Commission
Satish K Grover vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 10 May, 2023
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/CCITD/A/2022/158525
Satish K Grover ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Income Tax
Officer Ward 25(1), RTI Cell,
Room No. 187, C.R. Building,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01/05/2023
Date of Decision : 01/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25/09/2022
CPIO replied on : 04/10/2022
First appeal filed on : 11/10/2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 11/11/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 14/12/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.09.2022 seeking the following information:1
"I am in receipt of copy of letter No. ITO/ward-74(1)/2022-23/42 dated 26/08/2022 (Copy enclosed) which is self-explanatory.
In view of above letter kindly send me the following Information/documents about the D-6, RWA, Registration No. 47782/3 having PAN CARD No. AAGADC issued on 22.12.2023. As I am original allottee and R/o D-6, Vasant Kunj.
(i) Were ITR's filed by RWA D-6, since 2003-2004 (FY) since the PAN No. was allotted on 22.12.2003 till 2022-23 (FY).
(ii)If RWA D-6 didn't filed ITR's from FY 2003-2004 till date, action taken initiated by Income Tax Department may please sent copy of action taken report.
The above information has become necessary as the President D-6 RWA in the circular No 22 dated 13.08.2021 (copy enclosed) has mentioned in her last para that they got PAN CARD issued in September 2019 and have been deducting and depositing TDS since September 2019, whereas notice of Demand for the year was also issued for the FY 2019-2020 for Rs. 20,635/-. The president lied in her circular."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 04.10.2022, stating as under:
"Regarding your query seeking the details of the ITRs tiled from FY 2003-04 onwards by RWA D-6 having PAN-AAGAD2585C, and the action taken by the department in case of non-filing of ITRs by the said RWA, the reply of this office is as under:-
As per the records available on the ITBA system, the assessee was allotted PAN- AAGAD2585C only on 28.11.2020. The ITR filing details are as below:-
a) AY 2020-21= ITR filed on 27.02.2021
b) AY 2021-22 = ITR filed on 14.03.2022 As per records, no action seems to have been initiated against the said assessee as there was no adverse information available on record."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.10.2022. FAA's order dated 11.11.2022, held as under:
2"The appeal application has been filed by Sl. S. K. Grover Sr. Citizen Rio 6121/3, D- 6, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 on 11.10.2022 received in this office on 121.1.2022 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, against the ATI application dated 21.09.2022 in the office of the ITO Ward-25(1), New Delhi.
2. On receipt of RTI appeal application dated 12.10.2022 an opportunity of being heard vide F.No.Addl.C1T/Range-25/RTI/2022-23/581 dated 25.10.2022 was provided to assessee and requested to furnish documents/reply if any through DAK or on email i.e. [email protected] on or before 10.11.2022. Assessee has filed his written reply/letter on this matter on 07.11.2022.
3. Accordingly, the information provided by the PIO/Income Tax Officer, Ward- 25(1), New Delhi and the facts and material available of the case has been perused by the undersigned and was found satisfactory. It was found that the PIO/ Income Tax officer, W-25(1) has already provided the information sought by the appellant in this case vide letter F.No. ITO/Ward-25(1)/RTI/2022-23/60 dated 04.10.2022 as well as F.No.ITO/Ward-25(1)/Ward/RTI/2022-23 dated 04.11.2022 sent through speed post No. ED609790599IN (copy enclosed)."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference.
Respondent: Sharad Yadav, ITO & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The CPIO submitted that the Appellant is contesting the information provided by their office regarding allotment of PAN to the averred RWA on the basis that DDA informed him that the PAN was allotted to the said RWA in the year 2003 itself whereas as per the reply of the Income Tax authorities, the PAN was allotted in Nov, 2020. In this regard, he apprised the Appellant that the year 2003 finding mention in the PAN card is analogous to the date of birth found in the PAN cards issued to individuals, since the RWA was incorporated or registered as an association of persons in 2003 itself, that date finds a mention in the PAN card, however, it does not mean that the PAN was issued in the year 2003.3
The Appellant having heard the CPIO's clarification submitted that he still wants to verify if there was any PAN card issued to the said RWA in the year 2018 as the RWA applied for allotment for a Community Hall to DDA in the year 2018 and having a PAN card is a pre-requisite for having the Community Hall allotted.
The Commission interjected the Appellant at this point and advised him to restrict his arguments to the information sought for in the instant RTI Application as his arguments had already exceeded the mandate of the RTI Act with the issues raised by him in terms of his apprehensions against the date of allotment of the PAN card as well as the veracity of the allotment of the Community Hall to the RWA, all of which is a matter of grievance and conjecture, while ascertaining the merits of the same is outside the purview of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that despite the fact that the Appellant largely sought for clarifications that does not to conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the CPIO has provided the factual information, based on which, the Appellant is insisting on further clarifications to be provided which is untenable. For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(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;.." In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it washeld as under:
4"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. 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 `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." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
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 5 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." (Emphasis Supplied Similarly, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was 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."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...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...." (Emphasis Supplied) 6 The Appellant is therefore advised to pursue his grievances before the appropriate forum.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7