Central Information Commission
Ravindra Singh vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 18 April, 2023
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/CBODT/A/2022/117016
Ravindra Singh ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o INCOME TAX COMMISSIONER,
(APPEAL UNIT)-2, RTI CELL,
MOTI CHAMBER, 13/1, RANA
PRATAP MARG, TEESRI MANZIL,
LUCKNOW-226001, U.P. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14/02/2023
Date of Decision : 13/04/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on :28/08/2021
CPIO replied on :11/10/2021
First appeal filed on :27/12/2021
First Appellate Authority's order :24/01/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated :02/04/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.08.2021 with CBDT, New Delhi seeking the following information:1
The Respondent CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 11.10.2021 stating as under:
In response to the said reply, the Appellant again wrote to the CPIO, CBDT, New Delhi on 26.10.2021 stating as under:
The Respondent CPIO replied to the aforesaid communication on 13.12.2021 stating as under:2
Accordingly, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.12.2021 with the Pr. CCIT, UP (East) Region, Lucknow stating inter alia as under:
The FAA's order, dated 24.01.2022 observed as under -3
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating inter alia as under:
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Not present.4
The Commission remarked at the outset that the hearing notice served to the CPIO & FAA has been received back undelivered with the remarks "All Receiver refused wanting proper addressee here RTS".
The Appellant reiterated the grounds of the First and Second Appeal as mentioned above and urged for relief to be ordered in the matter.
Decision:
The Commission is baffled with certain facts emerging from the instant case in as much as the CPIO, CIT, Appeal Unit-2, Lucknow informed the Appellant vide her letter of 13.12.2021 that the FAA in the case is Pr. CCIT, UP (East), Lucknow but when the Appellant filed the First Appeal with the Pr. CCIT, UP (East), Lucknow, the First Appeal was rejected on the grounds that the Pr. CCIT, UP (East), Lucknow is not the FAA and that the Appellant needs to pursue the matter afresh.
Similarly, this bench is at a loss to comprehend the return of the notice of hearing of a quasi-judicial body constituted under the RTI Act by an establishment under the Govt. of India on the said ground- "All Receiver refused wanting proper addressee here RTS".
It is inferred from the facts on record that either there is no clarity amongst the employees of the Respondent office about the role and functions of their own establishment and their functionaries, besides Namita S Pandey, CPIO, CIT, Appeal Unit-2, Lucknow and Shishir Jha, Pr. CCIT, UP (East) Region, Lucknow appear to have created a sheer mockery of the RTI Act with their appalling contradictory stance about who is the FAA in the matter.
Similarly, there appears to be no nodal RTI cell in the Respondent office or the employees/officers therein do not intend to take responsibility for communications received under the RTI Act even from a quasi-judicial body constituted under the RTI Act i.e. the Commission. The said scenario calls for an immediate inquiry and necessary action by the Chairman, CBDT.
Therefore, by virtue of the powers of the Commission envisaged under Section 19(8)(a) of the RTI Act, the Chairman, CBDT is directed to depute an officer not below the rank of an Under Secretary to look into the above said matter and to fix the responsibility of the concerned delinquents (for misleading the Appellant about the FAA's particulars and for rejecting the First Appeal as well as for the return of the notice of hearing. A proper report of inquiry along with supporting 5 documents shall be sent to the Commission under the sign and seal of the Chairman, CBDT within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
A copy of this order is marked to the Chairman, CBDT along with all the relevant records i.e copy of the instant appeal and its annexures as well as the returned copy of the notice of hearing for taking necessary action as per the above directions.
Now, as far as the relief for disclosure of the information is sought for, the Commission finds no scope of action in the matter as the Appellant has sought for service-related details of a third party, disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act reads as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is further drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated 6 as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
With the above observations and direction, the appeal is disposed of.
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 / Copy to:
The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block New Delhi-110001
--(To ensure compliance of above directions) Encl: Copy of Second Appeal and its annexures.
Copy of returned notice of hearing.7