Central Information Commission
Meera Gupta vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 18 December, 2019
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/CCITD/A/2018/135203-BJ
Ms. Meera Gupta
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-30
Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Room No. 320, E-2, ARA Centre, Jhanedwalan Extn.
New Delhi-110055
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16.12.2019
Date of Decision : 17.12.2019
Date of RTI application 03.04.2018
CPIO's response 24.04.2018
Date of the First Appeal 27.04.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 07.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 04.06.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding the copy of seized books of accounts or documents in the course of search at Tirupati Sunworld Group having bearing on the determination of total income of M/s Kirtiman Marketing Pvt. Ltd; the copy of satisfaction recorded, if any, by the Assessing officer of searched person, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 24.04.2018 provided a point-wise response to the Appellant wherein it was informed that the information sought could not be furnished at this stage since the investigation in the matter was underway. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 07.05.2018, stated that the Assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Kirtiman Marketing Pvt. Ltd. have been initiated by issuing notice u/s 153C of the IT Act. Furthermore, the investigation in this case was under
progress and therefore, the information sought by the Appellant could not be furnished at this stage.Page 1 of 3
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Ganpat Pandit, Inspector;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The Respondent informed the Commission that the CPIO / FAA had furnished a suitable reply to the Appellant. Consequent upon investigation of the said matter, the information was provided to the Appellant on 12.09.2018.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 11.12.2019 wherein it was informed that the copy of seized books of accounts, copy of satisfaction recorded by AO of searched person and the copy of satisfaction recorded by ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi, as requested by the Applicant was provided vide their office letter dated 12.09.2018. Furthermore, the assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2011-12 to 2014-15 had also been completed and no matters were pending before the undersigned.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 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 was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), 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 '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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:Page 2 of 3
"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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the 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."
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate her claims further.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) (K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 17.12.2019 Page 3 of 3