Central Information Commission
Rama Aggarwal vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 6 March, 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/2017/145811-BJ
Ms. Rama Aggarwal
....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO
ITO (HQ) (Pers.) & CPIO (RTI)
Office of the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
C. R. Building, I. P. Estate
New Delhi - 110002
2. CPIO (CPC & E - Filing)
Office of the ADG (S) - 3
Aayakar Bhawan, Sector - 3
Vaishali, Ghaziabad - 201010
3. ITO, Ward - 70 (1)
Office of the ITO, Ward - 70(1)
Room No. 306, 3rd Floor
'D' Block, Civic Centre
New Delhi - 110002
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.03.2019
Date of Decision : 06.03.2019
Date of RTI application 26.08.2016 (as
mentioned in First
Appeal)
CPIO's response Not on Record
Date of the First Appeal 21.10.2016
First Appellate Authority's response 23.11.2016
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 05.07.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 05 points regarding attested copy of Income Tax Return or ITR V of Mr. Anil Aggarwal, PAN (as mentioned in RTI application) for the year 1990 till current Financial Year and other issues related thereto.Page 1 of 3
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 23.11.2016 directed the CPIO, ITO Ward 70(1) New Delhi to dispose off the above RTI application in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and in case, any point/issue of the application did not pertain to their jurisdiction, the same may be transferred to the concerned CPIO under intimation to their office.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Anurag Sharma, DDIT (Systems), Income Tax, Ghaziabad and Mr. R. S. Pundir, ITO;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The Commission was in receipt of an e-mail from the Appellant dated 23.02.2019 wherein it was informed that she is having hearing in the High Court on 06.03.2018 and therefore, it was requested to the Commission to shift her matter on 12.03.2019. It was noted by the Commission that in its notice issued informing about the date of hearing, it was categorically stated at point 07 of the notice that no adjournment / review shall be permitted. The Respondent informed the Commission that the entire information sought by the Appellant had been provided to her on 28.11.2016. Besides this there had been series of correspondence with various public authorities within the IT Department a copy of which was endorsed to the Appellant. Therefore, the Appellant was fully seized of the matter.
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: 06.03.2019
Page 3 of 3