Central Information Commission
Arun Kumar Gupta vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 28 April, 2020
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.(s):- CIC/CCITD/A/2019/152638 -BJ+
CIC/CCITD/A/2019/153483 -BJ+
CIC/CCITD/A/2019/154187 -BJ
Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO and DDIT(Vig.)
O/O the DGIT (Vig.)
Directorate General of Income Tax (Vig.),
2nd Floor, Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium,
New Delhi -110003
...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27.04.2020
Date of Decision : 28.04.2020
ORDER
RTI - 1 File No. CIC/CCITD/A/2019/152638 -BJ Date of RTI application 17.05.2019 CPIO's response 30.05.2019 Date of the First Appeal 28.06.2019 First Appellate Authority's response 31.07.2019 Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission Not on Record FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points inter alia regarding the name and designations of the officials who had handled his complaint dated 31.10.2018; copy of the notings regarding movement on his complaint; documented reason (if any) for not taking action on his complaint; number of complaints received by DGIT (Vig) against Income Tax Officials and Income Tax Vigilance Officials in each of the years 2010-2018 directly or through CVC/ Court, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 30.05.2019 provided a point wise response to the Appellant denying disclosure of information on point no 01 u/s 8 (1) (g) and (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Page 1 of 6Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 31.07.2019, directed the CPIO to pass a speaking order on para 2 and 3 of the RTI application.
RTI - 2 File No. CIC/CCITD/A/2019/153483 -BJ Date of RTI application 22.05.2019 CPIO's response 29.05.2019 Date of the First Appeal 13.06.2019 First Appellate Authority's response 10.07.2019 Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission Not on Record FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points inter alia regarding the action taken on his complaint dated 12.05.2019; copies of file notings and related documents on his complaint; if no action was taken, then reason for the same and the time limit for taking action on the complaint, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 29.05.2019 provided a point wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 10.07.2019, while relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Girish Ramachandra Deshpande vs CIC in SLP 27734/2012 concurred with the response of the CPIO denying information u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
RTI - 3 File No. CIC/CCITD/A/2019/154187 -BJ Date of RTI application 27.05.2019 CPIO's response 25.06.2019 Date of the First Appeal 11.09.2019 First Appellate Authority's response 10.10.2019 Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 11.11.2019 FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points with regard to a letter dated 24.01.2018; whether inquiry in the matter was completed; if not, reasons for the delay in enquiry; name of the investigating officer assigned in the case and the date of assignment, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 25.06.2019 stated that due to the shifting of the office, the record sought was not traceable. Hence, the Appellant was requested to provide the copy of the complaint so that they could ascertain the facts about the complainant and give him a factual reply. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 10.10.2019, stated that the order dated 25.07.2019 was mentioned in the instant First Appeal and that in compliance with the order the CPIO had provided a response dated 07.08.2019.
Page 2 of 6HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta through WhatsApp;
Respondent: Ms. Priya Goel, DDIT (Vig.) through WhatsApp;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that complete and satisfactory information had not been received by him, till date. He alleged malpractices within the Respondent Public Authority and further stated that the accused officials were being shielded by the IT officers. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated the response of the CPIO/FAA and further stated that the available information had already been furnished to the Appellant. With regard to information pertaining to the number of complaints received by DGIT (Vig) against Income Tax Officials and Income Tax Vigilance Officials in each of the years 2010-2018 directly or through CVC/ Court, the Respondent submitted that the same was not available with them in a compiled format and compiling the same would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. On being queried by the Commission whether the same answer would be offered to the Parliament or State Legislature, if asked, the Respondent replied in the Affirmative who further explained that no such question had been asked, so far. Even in reply to the Parliament Questions, no names had been disclosed. On being further queried by the Commission regarding the status of complaints filed by the Appellant, the Respondent feigned ignorance and further stated that after opening of lockdown, she would able to comment on the status of Appellant's complaint. With regard to file notings in the matter, the Respondent submitted that no larger public interest was involved in disclosure of such information and therefore, the same was denied accordingly. The Appellant while contesting the above averments of the Respondent, submitted that he is seeking status on his complaints and that the same should be disclosed to him. On being questioned whether any complaint regarding alleged malpractices/corruption had been filed with the CVC/CBI, the Appellant replied in the negative who further submitted that he was collecting evidences in support of his contention.
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 and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
Page 3 of 635..... "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. 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 Commission observed that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Kamal Bhasin v. Radha Krishna Mathur and Ors., W.P.(C) 7218/2016 dated 01.11.2017 had held as under:
"6. In the present case, the petitioner stands as a relator party as he is also one of the complainants. The petitioner is not seeking any personal information regarding respondent No. 3, but merely seeks to know the outcome of the complaint made by him and other such complaints. The PFC Officers Association had pointed out certain conduct which according to them was irregular and warranted disciplinary action; thus, they would be certainly entitled to know as to how their complaints have been treated and the results thereof.
In the context of disclosing the broad outcome of the Tax Evasion Petition filed by the Appellant, the Commission referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Kamal Bhasin v. Radha Krishna Mathur and Ors., W.P.(C) 7218/2016 dated 01.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:Page 4 of 6
"6. In the present case, the petitioner stands as a relator party as he is also one of the complainants. The petitioner is not seeking any personal information regarding respondent No. 3, but merely seeks to know the outcome of the complaint made by him and other such complaints. The PFC Officers Association had pointed out certain conduct which according to them was irregular and warranted disciplinary action; thus, they would be certainly entitled to know as to how their complaints have been treated and the results thereof.
11 In the circumstances, this Court directs the respondent to disclose to the petitioner as to what action had been taken pursuant to his complaint and other similar complaints made against the then CMD. The petitioner would not be entitled to any notings and deliberations of the Group of Officers or Disciplinary Authority but only information as to what action was taken in relation to the complaints in question."
This Commission further referred to the order dated 18/06/2013 (File No. CIC/RM/A/2012/000926 in Sh. Ved Prakash Doda v/s ITO) wherein it was held as under:
"6. It has been the stand of the Commission that in respect of a tax evasion petition, once the investigation is completed, the appellant should be informed the broad results of the investigation, without disclosing any details. The appellant has a right to know as to whether the information provided by him was found to be true or false."
While relying on the aforementioned decision of the Commission in the matter of Ved Prakash Doda, the Commission in Mohd Naeem Ahmed vs. CPIO, ITO, CRU, New Delhi and CPIO, ITO, Ward 56 (1), New Delhi in CIC/CC/A/2015/004382/BS/10949 dated 29.07.2016 held as under:
"In the matter at hand investigation/assessment is in progress. The CPIO/ITO Ward 56(1) should disclose the broad outcome of the TEP to the appellant as soon as the assessment is completed."
The aforementioned decision was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Mohd. Naeem Ahmed vs. Director of Income Tax and Ors, WP (C) 1112/2018 dated 27.03.2019. The relevant extracts of the order are mentioned hereunder:
"3. Mr. Bharat Bhushan Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, during his arguments stated that he would be satisfied if the petitioner is informed the ultimate outcome of the investigation / assessment. It goes without saying that in terms of the direction of the CIC, the CPIO / ITO of the Ward concerned is / are required to disclose the broad outcome of the TEP to the petitioner herein. There is no reason to disbelieve that they shall not disclose the same after the investigation / assessment is over.
1. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents assures the Court that the said procedure shall be followed in this case. Taking the statement on record, I am of the view no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition"Page 5 of 6
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of above referred decisions of the Superior Courts, the Commission directs the Respondent to intimate the broad outcome / updated status of the investigation in respect of the complaints filed by the Appellant to him within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order depending upon the condition for containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country or through email, as agreed.
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (नबमल जुल्का) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) K.L. Das (के .एल.िास) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 28.04.2020 Page 6 of 6