Central Information Commission
G S Balasubramnian vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 6 December, 2018
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/CCITA/A/2017/161891-BJ
Mr. G.S. Balasubramanian
....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO,
Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1
Kumbakonam, Office of the ACIT and CPIO, No. 31
Krishnaswamy Road, Gandhinagar, Kumakonam-612001
2. CPIO,
Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward,
Office of the ITO, Exemptions Ward, Room No.210
2nd Floor, No.44, Williams Road, Cantonment,
Tiruchirapalli - 620001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.12.2018
Date of Decision : 06.12.2018
Date of RTI application 01.04.2017
CPIO's response 02.05.2017
Date of the First Appeal 30.05.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 14.06.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 04.09.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points regarding the name and address of the present and previous Managing Trustee/Board of Trustees of Sri Bhagavan Nama Bodhendral Seva Samithi Annadhana Trust, nature of activities conducted by the above mentioned Trust, and the Assessment Year for which the Income Tax Return was lastly filed etc. Page 1 of 4 The CPIO, vide its reply dated 02.05.2017, denied disclosure of information being "Third Party" information and also the same was not in the nature of public document. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 14.06.2017, upheld the CPIOs response.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Shiv Kumar, ITO through VC;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Anandhakumar, Network Engineer NIC studio at Thanjavur confirmed the absence of the Appellant. The Respondent submitted that in the absence of the PAN number, they will not be able to search and identify the records sought by the Appellant. Furthermore, the CPIO / FAA had responded appropriately in the matter. The Commission was in receipt of an adjournment letter from the Respondent, Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kumbakonam dated 05.12.2018 wherein it was submitted that the original jurisdiction in the present matter was lying with the Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Trichy and further requested the Commission to adjourn the case in the first week of January 2019, due to hectic work on time barring Income Tax Assessments (115 cases) to be completed before 31.12.2018.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 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:
Page 2 of 435..... "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, 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. Page 3 of 4 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 establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
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: 06.12.2018
Page 4 of 4