Central Information Commission
Nooty Vasishta Venkateswarlu vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 5 June, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CBODT/A/2023/101453/CCITH
Nooty Vasishta Venkateswarlu .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Office of the Asst.
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit,
3rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Basheerbagh,
Hyderabad - 500004 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 31.05.2024
Date of Decision : 04.06.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03.11.2022
CPIO replied on : 20.11.2022
First appeal filed on : 24.11.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 14.12.2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 03.01.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.11.2022 seeking the following information:
"A complaint is lodged by me on 18-02-2022 and reminded on 07-05-2021 relating to Binami transactions carried on by Sri M.V. Sharma, with PAN No. AHMPM 1756E along with Sri Cherukuri Sreedhar, MD & CEO of Transtory Page 1 of 7 Infrastructure Company, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Hence, the Applicant seeks the following information:-
(a) Copy of the internal file notings made on the complaint dated 18-2- 2021 as well as 7-5-2021.
(b) Information relating to the action initiated in the matter.
(c) If any notice is served to Sri M.V. Sharma, a true copy of the same may be furnished.
(d) True copy of the reply, if any, that is furnished by Sri M.V. Sharma.
(e) Information relating to the action finalized in the matter.
(f) True copy of the Orders passed in the matter may be furnished.
(g) Information relating to any penalty or enhancement of Tax/Revision of Assessments made and if so, true copies of the same may be furnished."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 20.11.2022 stating as under:
"In respect of the information sought, it is brought to the notice of the applicant that Sec.24(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 exempts certain government organizations which find mention in the Second Schedule to the Act and as notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette. The Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation), is included vide Official Gazette Notification dated 28.03.2008 in the list of organizations which are exempt from providing information as per section 24 of the Right to Information Act. Accordingly, Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), who are exempt from providing information under Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 read with Second Schedule thereof, shall not be bound to provide any information about action taken or outcome achieved except as provided in the said Act. The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Unit comes under control of the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation). Hence, this office is exempt from providing such information.
Further, it is not out of place here to mention that the Hon'ble Central Information Commission, New Delhi in the case of Katapally Sathya Reddy Vs. ACIT (BPU), Hyderabad vide their order in second appeal No.CIC/CCITH/A/2019/104871 dt.23.10.2020 held that this Commission observes that the office of the ACIT (Benami Prohibition) is a part of the vertical organizational hierarchy of DGIT and hence, it cannot be construed as an independent office merely because it was created under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. As such the RTI Act, 2005 is not applicable to this organization except in the case of corruption and human rights violations. The appellant has also not established any element of corruption Page 2 of 7 and human rights violations in the matter. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter."
In view of the above, and also for the reason that the applicant has not established any element of corruption and human rights violation in the matter, the information sought vide application dated 03.11.20222 cannot be divulged to Shri Kurapati Shankaraiah."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.11.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 14.12.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through Video-Conference.
Respondent: Ms. Meena Uppaluri, Dy. Commissioner & CPIO present through Video-Conference.
The written submissions of the Appellant and the Respondent are taken on record.
The appellant inter alia submitted that the information sought falls under the proviso of Section 24(1) as there are allegations of corruption in this matter. He further submitted that the replies given by the respondent are not appropriate and he prayed for directions be given to provide complete information free of cost. The Appellant, during the hearing, referred to the decision of the Commission in file bearing No. CIC/DVAAC/A/2016/304237/CBRUI/MP dated 12.12.20217 where the Commission directs the Respondent to provide complete information to the RTI applicant.
The respondent, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of their reply which states as "The Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation), is included vide Official Gazette Notification dated 28.03.2008 in the list of organizations which are exempt from providing information as per section 24 of the Right to Information Act. Accordingly, Director General of Income Tax Page 3 of 7 (Investigation), who are exempt from providing information under Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 read with Second Schedule thereof, shall not be bound to provide any information about action taken or outcome achieved except as provided in the said Act. The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Unit comes under control of the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation). Hence, this office is exempt from providing such information." Therefore, the information sought by the appellant does not relate to allegations of corruption and human rights violation as per Section 24(1) of RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the same cannot be provided under RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that as per the Respondent, the Public Authority is included in the list of organisations exempted from the purview of RTI Act, 2005 as per section 24 of the second schedule to the RTI Act, 2005.
It is noteworthy to mention that the Respondent Public Authority has been excluded from the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 except in the case of allegations of corruption or human rights violations within the respondent public authority. It is pertinent to mention that the allegations of corruption and human rights violation should be construed to mean verifiable allegations, in other words, a mere charge or perception of corruption or human rights violation is not sufficient in the absence of any supporting material that proves such charge in its evidentiary value has strength. It is a well settled proposition that every RTI Applicant who utters the word 'corruption' or alleges corruption or violation of human rights does not become entitled to get information from public authorities exempted u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act. The onus of substantiating the allegation of corruption and human rights violation lies on the RTI Applicant and 'perception' is certainly no ground to agitate for right to information under the proviso to Section 24(1) of RTI Act.
As observed in the present case, the complaint filed by the Appellant arising out of the matrimonial dispute between him and his wife Smt. Sindhu Sharma. The Commission is of the view that the broad outcome of the action taken on Page 4 of 7 the application/or status of the complaint/letter should have been informed to the Appellant under the RTI Act (as sought in the RTI application).
The Commission observed that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Kamal Bhasin v. Radha Krishna Mathur and Ors., W.P.(C) 7218/2016 dated 01.11.2017 had held as under:
"6. In the present case, the petitioner stands as a relator party as he is also one of the complainants. The petitioner is not seeking any personal information regarding respondent No. 3, but merely seeks to know the outcome of the complaint made by him and other such complaints. The PFC Officers Association had pointed out certain conduct which according to them was irregular and warranted disciplinary action; thus, they would be certainly entitled to know as to how their complaints have been treated and the results thereof.
7. Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act reads as under:- "8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,- xxxxxxxxx (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Central Information Commission appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
8. It is apparent from the plain reading of the aforesaid clause that in order to claim exemption from disclosure of any information, the essential conditions that must be satisfied are: (i) that it is personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest; or (b) that it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. However, even if the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority may disclose the information if they are satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
9. The proviso of Section 8 (1) of the Act is also important and reads as under:
"Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person."Page 5 of 7
10. By virtue of the aforesaid proviso to Section 8(1) of the Act, it is enacted that information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. In the present case, it was doubtful whether information as to the fate of the complaints can be considered as personal information that has no relationship with public interest or public activity. The activity of the Central Vigilance Department includes investigation and taking action in cases of corruption. Secondly, the complaint related to the allegations of misconduct and how these complaints were treated were clearly matter of public interest. 11 In the circumstances, this Court directs the respondent to disclose to the petitioner as to what action had been taken pursuant to his complaint and other similar complaints made against the then CMD. The petitioner would not be entitled to any notings and deliberations of the Group of Officers or Disciplinary Authority but only information as to what action was taken in relation to the complaints in question."
In view of the above ratios, the Respondent is directed to inform the Appellant, the status of action taken on his complaint (as mentioned in the RTI application) as on date of RTI application and its present status. If the said application has already been disposed of, then the broad outcome should be provided to the Appellant, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The FAA is directed to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 6 of 7 Copy To:
The FAA Office of the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, 3rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500004 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)