Central Information Commission
Dipak Kumar Ganeriwala vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 18 March, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCITK/A/2024/117452
Dipak Kumar Ganeriwala .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Academy of Direct
Taxes, Regional Campus, Aaykar
Bhawan, 2nd Floor, 110,
Shantipally, Kolkata - 700107 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03.02.2026
Date of Decision : 18.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.03.2024
CPIO replied on : 27.03.2024
First appeal filed on : 24.04.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.05.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28.05.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.03.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:CIC/CCITK/A/2024/117452 Page 1 of 10
"Please note that I am one of the co-owners of "Ganeriwala Court" 16-B, Rowland Road, Kolkata-700020 by virtue of being a bonafide coparcener of Bishwanath Ganeriwala HUF and also a Joint Executor to the last will of Late Shri Bishwanath Ganeriwala (Will copy and Probate order enclosed herewith for your ready reference and marked as Letter "A").
Your esteemed department had taken on the lease the 1, 2nd and 3rd Floors of the aforesaid premises and the said premises was vacated by your department sometime in the year 2015. Though I am one of the co- sharers and co-owners of the said aforesaid property as is clearly evident from the will and probate order, I was not party to any agreement with you. It has come to knowledge of the undersigned from the reliable source that arrear rentals were due in respect to the aforesaid premises and the Karta of Bishwanath Ganeriwala HUF was following up with your department for the payment of such arrear rent (correspondence with your department enclosed herewith for your ready reference and collectively marked as Letter "B"). In the circumstances I seek the following information under the RTI Act.
a) Please provide me the last Lease/Tenancy agreement for the aforesaid premises.
b) Please provide me the information to whom you used to pay the Lease rent.
c) Please provide me the information about the date of termination of Lease/tenancy Agreement.
d) Please provide me the information as to whom your department had handed over the vacant possession of the aforesaid premises.
e) Please let me have a copy of the Possession Handover Letter, if any.
f) Please inform whether any arrear rent has been paid by your department with regard to the aforesaid premises. If yes, kindly let me have the Particulars and details of the payment so made. (Date of payment, amount of payment and the name and Bank of the Beneficiary to whom the payment has been made.)"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 27.03.2024 stating as under:
CIC/CCITK/A/2024/117452 Page 2 of 10"In this regard, 1st Para of the RTI Application dated 04.03.2024 filed by Shri Dipak Kumar Ganeriwala is reproduced below:
"Please note that I am one of the co-owners of "Ganeriwala Court" 16-B, Rowland Road, Kolkata-700020 by virtue of being a bona fide coparcerner of Bishwanath Ganeriwala HUF and also a Joint Executor to the last will of Late Shri Bishwanath Ganeriwala..."
The applicant, viz. Shri Dipak Kumar Ganeriwala in his RTI application dated 04.03.2024 has claimed that he is one of the co-owners of "Ganeriwala Court" and also a Joint Executor to the last will of Late Bishwanath Ganeriwala. The applicant has also submitted an uncertified copy, said to be that of 'Grant of Probate of Will (I)' [section 289 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925] in High Court Form No. (J) 53 with certain other copies.
On perusal of the RTI application dated 04.03.2024 filed by the applicant the following points emerge
a) The applicant has claimed that he is a co-owner of the related property.
b) The applicant has stated that he is the coparcener of the 'BISWANATH GANERIWALA HUF' on behalf of which the rent agreement and other transactions with the Office of the National Academy of Direct Taxes, Regional Campus (erstwhile Direct Taxes Regional Training Institute), Kolkata has been entered into.
c) All the information and documents as sought for by the applicant are related to such rent transactions and hence should be available with 'BISWANATH GANERIWALA, HUF
d) There has been no indication or documentation provided from the end of the applicant which establishes that the applicant do not have access to such details/documents though admittedly he is co-owner of the property as well as son of late Bishwanath Ganeriwala.
CIC/CCITK/A/2024/117452 Page 3 of 10Considering the above stated facts in the light of the order of the Hon'ble CIC, dated 13.01.2007, vide F. No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00503, 506 & 510, in the case of S.P. Goyal Vs. ACIT(Hqrs), Mumbai, part of which is produced as follows.
"... that if there is evidence that a citizen who seeks the information from the public authority is already in possession of the same, he can't simultaneously claim the right to access the same in the hands of the public authority...."
I am of the considered view that the application from the applicant cannot be entertained, being a case covered by the decision of the Hon'ble CIC as above.
The RTI applications both dated 04.03.2024 filed by Shri Dipak Kumar Ganeriwala, 3, India Exchange Place, Kolkata-700 001, West Bengal are thus disposed."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.04.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 22.05.2024, held as under:
"In the present case, Shri. Deepak Kumar Ganeriwala submitted an RTI Application dated-04.03.2024 under section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the CPIO, the Addl. Asst. DIT (Trg)-2, office of the Additional Director General of Income-tax, NADT, RC, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipaly, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata, West Bengal-700107. The Appellant sought for certain information/documents pertaining to the HUF, of which the Appellant is a member coparcener. The information sought for by the Appellant was denied by the CPIO as per reasons stated in para-5 and 6 of the order under section 7(1) dated 27.03.2024.
The crux of observation made by CPIO in the order passed under section 7(1) is that, the Appellant himself being a member of the HUF, would be having access to the details/documents sought for in the RTI application as the Appellant has not provided any indication or documentation contradicting this. The CPIO relying upon the judgement of Hon'ble CIC as CIC/CCITK/A/2024/117452 Page 4 of 10 stated by the CPIO in para 6 of his order dated-27.03.2024, has denied information as sought for by the Appellant.
The Appellant vide his letter of appeal dated-24.04.2024 as well as through appearance before undersigned on 09.05.2024 through authorized representative, has stated that the Karta of the HUF has not provided necessary information to him and is not cooperating in providing the same. Thereby, the view taken by the CPIO is incorrect so far as the same states that the Appellant is already possessing the relevant information that is being called for in the present RTI.
The plea of the Appellant to the extent that he is not possessing the information/document sought for, cannot be ignored and it cannot be said that the Appellant is asking for some details/documents which he is already possessing.
The HUF and a member coparcener are separate entities and the HUF is therefore to be treated as a third party for the purposes of RTI Act.
The CPIO therefore is directed to examine the matter to be one where the information, being requested documents/details, pertain to a third party, being the Karta of the HUF and the Appellant is not possessing the relevant information.
In view of this, the CPIO is further directed to communicate to the Karta of the HUF about the requisition of the Appellant and on obtaining his response, proceed with disposal of the RTI application afresh. This exercise will be completed within twenty days of the present order."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Anirudh Generiwala appeared on behalf of the Appellant through video conference.CIC/CCITK/A/2024/117452 Page 5 of 10
Respondent: Shri Vidyut Saha, ITO/CPIO, appeared through video conference.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 28.05.2024 is available on record.
6. The Appellant inter alia submitted that he had filed detailed written submissions dated 02.03.2026 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
1. The Appellant is a son of Late Bishwanath Ganeriwala, since deceased, who was the Karta of the Family HUF namely Bishwanath Ganeriwala HUF. The said HUF is governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law.
2. The Late Bishwanath Ganeriwala died on 03.08.1994 leaving behind his Last Will and Testament whereby, he bequeathed all his moveable & immoveable assets (except the IBP Dealerships) in favour of His HUF, being Bishwanath Ganeriwala HUF (hereinafter referred as the said HUF). Late Bishwanath Ganeriwala named various family members including the Appellant, to be part of the HUF and also named his eldest son Pradip Kumar Ganeriwala as the Karta of the said HUF. He also named Pradip Kumar Ganeriwala and Dipak Kumar Ganeriwala (the Appellant herein) as the Joint Executors to his last Will which was duly probated by the District Delegate at Alipore by an order dated 26th March, 1997. A copy of the death certificate, Will and Probate order are annexed hereto & collectively marked as Letter "A"
3. That apart from being a class-I Legal heir of Bishwanath Ganeriwala, the appellant is also a named coparcener and also a Joint Executor to the Will of Late Bishwanath Ganeriwala. In such capacity, the Appellant herein is entitled to enquire into the assets of Late Bishwanath Ganeriwala as also his HUF. The said Bishwanath Ganeriwala was the owner of Premises no. 16-B, Rowland Road, Kolkata 700020, which was duly purchased by him during his lifetime. A copy of the Indenture of Conveyance dated 12.12.1961 is annexed hereto and marked with Letter "B".
4. That, some of the floors of the aforesaid premises was let out to the Regional Training Institute of Direct Taxes, Kolkata. The appellant herein, in his capacity as an Executor to the Will of his father namely Late Shri Bishwanath Ganeriwala, requested the Respondent to provide certain information including the amount and details of arrear rentals paid in respect of the CIC/CCITK/A/2024/117452 Page 6 of 10 aforesaid premises vide an RTI Application dated 04.03.2024. At first, the information was denied by the Respondent on the pretext that the appellant Is already possessing the information as sought for in the RTI Application. A copy of RTI Application dated 04.03.2024 along with the Respondent's reply dated 27.03.2024 is annexed hereto and collectively marked as Letter "C".
5. That, the appellant was compelled to file a First Appeal dated 24.04.2024, a copy whereof is annexed hereto and marked with the Letter "D". Pursuant to such, a hearing was conducted where the First Appellate Authority held that the Respondent had erred in concluding the appellant was already possessing the information as sought for in the RTI Application. However, surprisingly this time the First Appellate Authority yet again denied information on a different ground altogether claiming that the appellant's HUF is a third party and sought permission from the Karta of the HUF. A copy of the order of the First Appellate Authority dated 22.05.2024 is also annexed herewith and marked with the Letter "E".
6. That, in the most compelling circumstances, the appellant herein has filed a Second Appeal dated 28.05.2024, a copy whereof is also annexed herewith and marked with Letter "F". That, being a Joint Executor to the Will of Love Sh.
Bishwanath Ganeriwala, the appellant herein cannot be treated as a third party in so much so as the aforesaid property belonged to the Appellant's father. Not only Is the appellant a class-I legal heir and a bona fide coparcener of Bishwanath Ganeriwala HUF, but the appellant is also a Joint Executor to the estate of his father and thus, the appellant cannot be treated as a third party with respect to the estate of his father. Further, the appellant enjoys a same equal share as that of the Karta in the aforesaid property which was let out the Regional Training Institute of Direct Taxes, Kolkata.
7. That, in the interest on transparency most of the properties that are taken on Lease by Government departments are done so by registered deeds/instruments, a certified copy whereof can be obtained by the public at large. The lease rentals and arrear lease rentals with respect to a property taken on lease by a Public Sector undertaking is matter of public interest and as such to ensure transparency such information should be made available to the public. In the instant case, the appellant is not only a class-I legal heir of Bishwanath Ganeriwala who was the owner of such property, but the appellant is also a Joint executor to the estate of his late father and as such the aforesaid property is very much a part of the estate left behind by the CIC/CCITK/A/2024/117452 Page 7 of 10 father of the appellant and therefore the appellant cannot be treated as a third party for the purpose of the RTI Act.
8. That, such act on part of the Respondent to withhold crucial information with respect to a property, wherein the appellant is one of the Executors, first on the pretext that such information is already possessed by the appellant and then later on the pretext that the appellant is a third party is dehors the provisions of the law of the land and in particular the RTI Act, 2005. In support of the case, the appellant places reliance on Sonam Sharma Vs CPIO, State Bank of India, Regional Office, Region 3, Udaipur, wherein this Hon'ble Commission held that a daughter/son is entitled to receive information about the deceased mother/father, however, the information seeker should produce supporting document(s) to show that she/he is a legal heir. In the instant case, the appellant has already provided proof that the property in question was a property belonging to his father Late Sh. Bishwanath Ganeriwala as Annexure "B". The appellant has also provided proof that he was the son and bonafide coparcener of Bishwanath Ganeriwala HUF and also one of the Executors to the Will of his father which would be evident from the Will Copy and Probate Order as Annexure "A". A self-attested copy of AADHAR Card of the appellant is also annexed hereto and marked with Letter "G", wherein the name of the father of the appellant is clearly mentioned.
9. That the non-provision of crucial information by the Respondent has caused tremendous loss and damage to the Appellant. The appellant herein is a Senior Citizen and also a heart patient and has been running pillar to post since March, 2024 for simply obtaining Rental information from a property left behind his deceased father, who had even named the appellant herein as one of the Executors to the Estate. Further delay in providing the necessary information against F. NO. CIC/CCITK/A/2024/117452 would further cause irreparable loss and harassment to the Appellant abovenamed.
Prayer In the above premises, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Information Commissioner of CIC India maybe pleased:
(1) To pass an order with appropriate positive action against the Respondent to supply the requisite information sought in the RTI Application as also prayed for in the Second Appeal.CIC/CCITK/A/2024/117452 Page 8 of 10
(il) To pass such further orders which the Hon'ble Information Commissioner may deem fit in the interest of justice."
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought was denied on the ground that it pertains to third-party information. They further stated that in response to another RTI application filed by the same Appellant, the Karta of the HUF was contacted; however, the Karta declined to consent to disclose the information to the Appellant.
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that the First Appellate Authority (FAA), vide order dated 22.05.2024, had categorically directed the CPIO to re-examine the RTI application by invoking the provisions of Section 11 of the RTI Act and to dispose of the matter afresh within a stipulated time frame. However, as per the records available on the Commission's e-book, the said directions of the FAA have not been complied with by the CPIO till the date of hearing. Such non-compliance reflects a disregard to the quasi-judicial order of the FAA and is viewed seriously by the Commission.
9. Further, during the course of hearing, the Respondent, Shri Vidyut Saha, ITO/CPIO, sought time to file written submissions/counter submissions before the Commission. The Commission had allowed reasonable opportunity; however, no such submissions have been placed on record till date. This conduct indicates lack of diligence in discharging statutory responsibilities under the RTI Act in addition to the disregard as noted above.
10. On merits, the Commission observes that the Appellant has established his locus in the matter by claiming to be a co-owner/coparcener and Joint Executor of the estate in question. In view of the facts on record, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the Appellant cannot be treated as a stranger to the property in question. Therefore, no apparent harm or unwarranted invasion of privacy would be caused in disclosing the information sought at point Nos. (b) to (d) of the RTI application. Accordingly, the CPIO is directed to provide complete and categorical information in respect of point Nos. (b) to (d) of the RTI application to the Appellant.
CIC/CCITK/A/2024/117452 Page 9 of 1011. With regard to the remaining points of the RTI application, the Commission directs the CPIO to strictly follow the procedure prescribed under Section 11 of the RTI Act, and after due compliance of Section 11, the CPIO shall take an independent and reasoned view in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act while also carrying out a harm assessment and provide a revised information/reply to the Appellant. The above directions shall be complied with within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
12. The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Sd/-
(S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, National Academy of Direct Taxes, Regional Campus, Aaykar Bhawan, 2nd Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata - 700107 CIC/CCITK/A/2024/117452 Page 10 of 10 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)