Central Information Commission
Kevalur Narayanaswamy Krishnamurthy vs Director General Of Income Tax ... on 30 January, 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/DGITS/A/2022/609500
Kevalur Narayanaswamy Krishnamurthy ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED
PROCESSING CENTER,
RTI CELL, 48/1 & 48/2, PRESTIGE ALPHA,
BERATENA AGRAHARA,
ELECTRONIC CITY(POST), HOSUR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560500 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24/01/2023
Date of Decision : 24/01/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21/12/2021
CPIO replied on : 20/01/2022
First appeal filed on : 20/01/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 14/02/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 21.12.2021 seeking the following information:1
1. "Why is the Final Interest of Rs.22 reflecting on the IT Portal for AY 2020-
21, when the outstanding demand of Rs.2240 was paid vide Challan serial number: 17769 on 24th June, 2021, the same date on which the Demand was raised.
2. Why the Request Type is not enabled under the Rectification Tab for AY 2021-22, due to which the Taxpayer is not enable to submit a Rectification Request.
3. When Reprocess the Return option is exercised by the Taxpayer for AY 2021-22, why the Income Tax Return is not being reprocessed.
4. When the Response to an Outstanding Demand for AY 2021-22 is sent by the Taxpayer on the same date on which the Tax Demand was raised, disagreeing with the Tax Demand, why is interest being accrued on the Outstanding Demand, with the option to file a Rectification by the Taxpayer, being not been fully enabled on the IT portal.
5. Why is the Interest of Rs.314 being accrued on the Outstanding Demand for AY 2021-22, when a Response fully disagreeing with the Demand has been submitted on the Portal on the same date on which the Demand was raised and with no option available to the Taxpayer for filing a Rectification."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 20.01.2022 stating as under Point No. 1:- "It is observed that processing of the revised return of income filed on 30.03.2021 for A.Y. 2020-21 was completed on 24.06.2021. Hence, the demand of Rs.2,240/- was determined on 24th June, 2021. The receipts of payment of challan for Rs.2,240/- have been applied against outstanding demand on 24th August, 2021. As there was a delay of one month, interest under Section 220(2) of Rs.221- has been calculated. Point No. 2 & 3:- It is observed that no information' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 emanate out of the requests made by the applicant in these two queries. Hence, the same are rejected. Point No. 4 & 5:- It is observed that processing of the revised return of income filed on 02.01.2022 for A.Y. 2021-22 has been completed on 04.01.2022. A demand of Rs.15,730/- has been determined, which is outstanding as on date. As on date, no interest under Section 220(2) has been calculated."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.01.2022. FAA's order dated 14.02.2022 held as under:-
2"............it is held that the CPIO has satisfactorily discharged her obligation under the RTI Act in the case of the appellant. Consequently, the grounds of appeal of the appellant are found to be devoid of merits and are dismissed."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Rajamathangi V, ITO & CPIO present through video-conference.
The Appellant restricted his arguments to the fact that relevant clarification in response to point no. 5 regarding non-rectification of error of interest of Rs.314 being accrued on the Outstanding Demand for AY 2021-22, is concerned , has not been provided to him till date. He went on to say that despite the fact he has appealed to the Appellate authority ; the demand on the Portal on the Interest of Rs.314 being accrued on the Outstanding Demand for AY 2021-22 was still flashing .
In response to Appellant's contentions, the CPIO relied on her written submission dated 16.01.2023 by explaining the fact that processing of the revised return filed for A.Y. 2020-21 had been completed on 24.06.2021. However, the receipts for payment towards outstanding demand of Rs.2,240/- made on 24.06.2021 had been applied on 24.08.2021. Hence, interest under Section 220(2) of Rs.22/- had been charged on the delay of one month. The status of the case as on the date of replying to RTI application was provided to the Appellant. She further explained that the Integrated E-filing CPC (IEC) 2.0 portal was launched on 07th June, 2021. The delayed application of receipts of payment made by the appellant and the reflection of Rs.22/- interest thereon was also one such glitch encountered with the launch of the new e-filing portal However, the case record was taken up for re-processing and the interest under Section 220(2) of Rs.22/- for A.Y. 2020-21 was cancelled thereafter. There is no demand outstanding as on date for A.Y. 2020-21. Similarly, the request for re-processing of the return filed for A.Y 2021- 22 was completed on 04.01.2022 and a demand of Rs.15,730/- had been raised under Section 154, which is still outstanding as on date. The CPIO could only 3 provide a reply to the appellant on the status of the case as on date of replying to the RTI Application therein. She further added that It was not feasible to reply to speculative queries as to why the Rectification functionality was not enabled for A.Ys. 2020-21 and 2021-22 etc. The Rectification functionality could not be enabled at that point in time, due to an issue encountered during its deployment on the new portal. Hence, shelter was taken under the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, wherein it is stated that it does not include within its fold, answers to the question why, which would be the same thing as asking reasons for justification of a particular thing. Furthermore, although there were glitches with the launch of the new portal, the case record of the appellant had been taken up subsequently for reprocessing upon taking cognizance by their competent authority and upon direction of their concerned Commissioner, the grievance of the Appellant will be redressed soon.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core issue raised in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to information as much it is about the redressal of Appellant's grievance regarding alleged non-rectification of error for outstanding demand of interest despite submission of proper response to this effect.
From the standpoint of the RTI Act, the reply of the CPIO adequately suffices the information sought for in the instant RTI Application as per the provisions of 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.
In this regard, his 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 was held as under:
"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 4 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) Further, the issue raised by the Appellant alleged arbitrary outstanding demand of interest is purely a matter of grievance which is not amenable under the RTI Act. In this regard, reference may be had of a judgment of 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 wherein it has been 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 fora. 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."(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:
5"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) Nonetheless, the factual reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO through her latest written submission is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
In view of the above, no action is warranted in the matter.
However, the Commission empathizes with the concern of the Appellant and advises him to pursue his grievance through appropriate administrative channel.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) 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 / 6