Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Central Information Commission

Mr.Jeevan Lal Kamal vs Cbdt on 9 May, 2011

                                    1


              Central Information Commission
Room No.296, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama 
                     Place, New Delhi­110066
     Telefax:011­26180532 & 011­26107254 website­cic.gov.in

             Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2010/001779 

 Appellant /Complainant         :        Sh. Jeevan Lal Kamal, 
Farrukhabad      
Public Authority                :        Addl.Dir. of 
IncomeTax(Inv.),Agra
                                (Shri Subir Chatterjee, CPIO 
- through
                                Videoconferencing) 

Date of Hearing                 :         09 May 2011 
Date of Decision                :         09 May 2011

Facts:­ 

1. The applicant submitted RTI application dated 23  September 2009 before the CPIO, Office of Additional  Dir   of   Income   Tax   (investigation),   Agra,   seeking  information   pertaining   to   action   taken   on   his   Tax  Evasion   Petition   dated   11   July   2007   pertaining   to  third­party. Vide order dated 6 October 2009 the CPIO  informed him that information sought by the appellant  was denied as the office of DGIT (Investigation) was  exempted   from   the   purview   of   the   RTI   Act   under  section 24 read with Second Schedule of the Act.

2. Appellant   preferred   appeal   dated   5   May   2010  before   the First  Appellate  Authority  who  adjudicated  on   the   matter   vide   FAA   order   dated   18   June   2010   by  concurring   with the  CPIO.  Appellant  preferred  second  appeal   before   the   Commission.   The   matter   was   heard  today   through   videoconferencing.   Respondent   made  submissions from Agra, while appellant was present at  Farrukhabad.   Respondent   stated   that   he   was   under   no  obligation   to   furnish   information   on   account   of   the  reasons provided by the CPIO. He also stated that the  report   is   sent   to   the   assessing   officer   who   takes  action   as   per   the   law   and   decides   on   the   tax  liability   of   the   assessee.   Appellant   stated   that   he  Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2010/001779    2 had every right to receive information pertaining to  the outcome of the TEP submitted by him.

Decision notice

3. After   hearing   both   parties   Commission   accepts  that   undoubtedly   the   respondent   is   listed   in   second  schedule   of   the   RTI   Act   which   read   with   section   24  keeps the organization  out of the purview of the RTI  Act.   However   in   the   Commission's   view   the   appellant  can   be   provided   with   information   regarding   whether  the information provided by him to the respondent in  his TEP was found to be true, partly true or false.  Therefore  without  providing  any other  information  to  the   appellant   regarding   the   outcome   of   any   action  taken  by  the respondent  on  the TEP  submitted   by the  appellant,   information   can   be   provided   to   the  appellant limited only to whether through his TEP he  had furnished information that was found to be true,  partly true or false.

4. Information as above to be furnished within two  weeks of receipt of the order. 

 

(Smt. Deepak Sandhu) Information Commissioner (DS) Authenticated true copy:

(T. K. Mohapatra) Under Secretary & Dy. Registrar   Copy to:­
1. Shri Jeevan Lal Kamal   1/34, LIC Avas Vikas Colony Farrukhabad
2. The CPIO Addl. Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Agra Aayakar Bhawan, Sanjay Place Agra­282002
3. The Appellate Authority Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2010/001779    3 Kanpur, 16/63, Civil Lines, Kanpur.
     

Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2010/001779