Central Information Commission
G Praveen Kumar vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 8 December, 2022
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/CCITH/A/2021/605249
G Praveen Kumar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Khammam Range, RTI Cell,
Aayakar Bhavan, Rajeev Gunt,
Near Kinnerasani Theatre,
Khammam-507001, Telangana .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07/12/2022
Date of Decision : 07/12/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24/01/2020
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 04/07/2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 24.01.2020 seeking the following information:
"Requesting to file a Tax Evasion Petition for Shri Ravulapalli Ramulu R/o H.No. 13-3-162, Bhupathi Rao 1 Colony Bhadrachalam 507111 Mobile 7036878743 as they falsely claim they have spent 50 Lakhs for their Daughter Miss. R Padma marriage and harassing me with false PWDVA and Maintenance case no MC/95/2019 of family court Ranga Reddy district, L.B. Nagar Hyderabad. Hence please investigate their expenses and Tax filing of all the family members which report/evidence will help me solve my case, to my knowledge her father was long retired and brother a govt teacher and they are making a false claim which can only be proved by the Income Tax Department."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.07.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: P. Balaraju, ITO Ward - 1 & CPIO present through video-conference.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his written submission dated 01.12.2022, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below in verbatim -
" ....The assessee vide his online RTI application xxxxx has filed a tax evasion petition(EOT) against Ravulapalli Ramulu Bhadrachalam and has not requested any income tax filing records for the F.Y.:2013-14 in respect of Ravulapalli Ramulu and others. As there is no sharing of information is involved in the above said RTI application the RTI application is disposed off and the same is communicated to the applicant sri G. Praveen, Hyderabad through online on 10.10.2022.
3. Further, as per the SOP issued by the Board of Direct Taxes(CBDT) the EOT petitions are to be dealt by the Directorate of Income tax (lnvestigation) offices only and hence the petition filed along with the online RTI application filed by G. Praveen Kumar Hyderabad vide registration number CCITH/R/E/20/00014 dated 24.01.2020 is transferred to the Pr. Director of lncome tax (Investigation), Hyderabad on 28.11.2022(copy enclosed)."
Decision:
2The Commission observes from a perusal of records and after scrutinizing the contents of RTI Application that the no specific information per se has been sought by the Appellant as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act. In this regard, 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.
His attention is also 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 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) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 3 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....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...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) Even if, a liberal interpretation is accorded in the matter, the Commission cannot lose sight of the fact that Pr. Director of lncome tax (Investigation) to whom his TEP as also the RTI Application was transferred is an exempt organization as per Second Schedule of Section 24 of the RTI Act. Further, the material on record does not suggest any allegation of corruption or human rights violation in the matter, for which reason, the Commission finds no reason to invoke the proviso to 4 Section 24(1) of the RTI Act to allow the disclosure of information, if any. Rather the TEP in question appears to have arisen from a matrimonial dispute. For the sake of clarity, the relevant provision of Section 24(1) is reproduced as under:
"24. Act not to apply to certain organizations.--
(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:..."
In this context, the Commission is guided by a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs Union Of India & Ors [W.P.(C) 83/2014] dated 03.02.2014, which held as under:
"4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption...." [Emphasis Supplied] The said judgment was later upheld by a division bench of the Court in LPA 229/2014 on 11.03.2014.
In view of the above and considering the absence of the Appellant during hearing to plead his case, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
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 / 5