Central Information Commission
Shiv Kumar vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 18 September, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCITJ/C/2024/615492
Shiv Kumar ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
O/o the Deput Commissioner of
Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan,
Sub City Centre, Savina,
Udaipur - 313001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01.09.2025
Date of Decision : 17.09.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 22.12.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
Compliance of FAA order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 12.04.2024
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 22.12.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"Please Clarify whether Wealth Tax Act license to act as a valuer of the following person has ever been cancelled or renewed if so the reason for the same. The details are as under:-
Page 1 of 4
1. Shree Gopal Mundhra, Mundhra chowk, Napasar, Bikaner- License No. CCIT/JPR/Cat-I/69/1992-93."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Ram Niwas Ola, Income Tax Officer & CPIO present through Video-Conference.
4. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 12.04.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.
5. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"In above context, it is to mention here that the applicant Sh. Shiv Kumar, G-1, Padma Nagar Estate, Behind Dena Bank, Udhna, Surat -394210 has filed an online application under RTI Act on 25.09.2023 vide Registration No. CCITJ/R/T/23/00282 which was received in this office from the office of the PCCIT, Rajasthan, Jaipur on 25.09.2023. Vide this RTI application, applicant/appellant had sought the following information:-
"Licence to act as a valuer granted to Shri Srigopal Mundhra, Mundhra Chowk, Napasar, Bikaner issued by CBDT, Delhi."
"With reference to above please provide us the details whether the licence issued to Shri Srigopal Mundhra was ever cancelled."
Upon receipt of the aforesaid application of the applicant under RTI Act an Order U/s 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 was passed by the then CPIO on 17.10.2023 on the basis of information as was made available by the dealing office viz ITO(Tech.), O/o CCIT, Udaipur vide letter No. 1421 dated 06.10.2023 (Copy enclosed for kind perusal and reference.).
Page 2 of 4Further, the appellant had filed another/afresh RTI application on 22.12.2023 bearing registration No. CCITJ/R/T/23/00375 which was received in this office on 26.12.2023 as available from archive online RTI portal, wherein information sought as under:
Please clarify whether Wealth Tax Act license to act as a valuer of the following person has ever been cancelled or renewed if so the reason for the same. The details are as under:-
"Shree Gopal Mundhra, Mundhra chowk, Napasar, Bikaner - License No.CCIT/JPR/Cat-1/69/1992-93"
3. It is worth to mention that on perusal of the content of the information sought for in both the RTI application it is evident that they are having same content. The applicant despite considering the facts mentioned in the aforesaid order repeatedly filed the application with this office instead of filing with Jodhpur jurisdiction.
4. Here it is further to mention that there was a structural change in the Department, and assignment of role of CPIO, O/o CCIT, Udaipur was reassigned from the DCIT(Admn.) to ITO(Hqrs.). Due to reassignment, the online access of the RTI portal was not available to CPIO/ ITO(Hqrs.). When role was assigned online, time for disposal of the application was lapsed hence it was not feasible to dispose off the application of the applicant."
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the matter pertains to CCIT, Jaipur and it is related to the year 1992-93. The organization has undergone restructuring and reorganization in the meantime. The Respondent, during the hearing, volunteered to provide reply/information to the Complainant as per his RTI application within four weeks.
Decision:
7. The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core contention raised by the Complainant in the instant Complaint was non-receipt of complete information from the PIO within stipulated period as per the RTI Act. The Respondent contended that due to receipt of identical RTI applications, the instant RTI application was not replied.
8. Now, being a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the facts of the case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act against Page 3 of 4 the PIO as it does not bear any mala fides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
9. Considering the facts narrated by the Respondent and his volunteering to provide a response to the RTI application, no mala fide is attributable to the Respondent.
10. The Respondent is advised to fulfil his commitment made during the hearing by providing updated reply/information to the Complainant as per his RTI application, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, through speed post. If the information sought pertains to some other department, then the Respondent is directed to take assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act from the concerned official who should be the deemed PIO in the present case w.r.t the information sought in his RTI application and provide information to the Complainant, free of cost.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)