Central Information Commission
Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 28 May, 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/CCITM/A/2017/178736-BJ
Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd.
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
ITO (HQ) to Pr. CIT ( C ),
Office of the ITO (HQ) to Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
Central - 4, Room No. 661, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan
Mumbai - 400020
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27.05.2019
Date of Decision : 28.05.2019
Date of RTI application 29.05.2017
CPIO's response 23.06.2017
Date of the First Appeal 27.07.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not On Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 22.11.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide RTI application sought information relating to the proceedings under section 263 in the case of Mumbai Nasik Expressway Limited for Assessment Year 2012-13 and desired details of whether the initiation of proceedings u/s 263 of Income Tax Act 1961 vide notice dated 24 Feb 2017 was a result of an audit objection and a certified copy of audit objection.
The CPIO, O/o the Pr. CIT (C) (4), Mumbai vide his letter dated 23.06.2017 denied disclosure of information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any is not on the record of the Commission. However, the CPIO, O/o the Pr. CIT (C) (4), Mumbai vide its letter dated 22.08.2017 erroneously treated it as an RTI application and provided additional clarifications to the Appellant.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:Page 1 of 3
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Ms. Shyama M. Pillai, CPIO & ITO (HQ) to PCIT (C) 4, Mumbai through VC;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The envelope containing the notice of hearing at the address mentioned by the Appellant was returned undelivered without any remark. The Respondent informed the Commission that an identical matter in Appeal No. CIC/CCITM/A/2017/165644-BJ dated 12.03.2019 had already been adjudicated by the Commission. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 17.05.2019 wherein it was stated that similar issues were heard and adjudicated by the Commission in Appeal No. CIC/CCITM/A/2017/165644-BJ dated 12.03.2019 wherein the Commission decided not to further intervene in the matter. It was stated that subsequent to the filing of the Appeal before the CIC on 15.09.2017, the Assessee on 22.11.2017 filed a duplicate appeal set on being informed that the CIC had shifted its office from August Kranti Bhawan to CIC Bhawan and the original set of appeal may have been misplaced.
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:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, Page 2 of 3 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 his claims further.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent and in the light of the decision of the Commission in an identical matter stated above, 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: 28.05.2019
Page 3 of 3