Central Information Commission
Ram Kumar vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 1 May, 2019
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.:- CIC/BS/A/2016/001647-BJ
Mr. Ram Kumar
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO and Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (E)
Circle -1 (1), O/o the DCIT (Exemptions)
Circle 1 (1), Room No. 2418, 24th Floor,
E -2 Block, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan
Dr. S. P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, New Delhi -110002
2. FAA, DGIT (E),
E - 2 Block, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan
Dr. S. P. Mukherjee Civic Centre
New Delhi - 110002
...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29.04.2019
Date of Decision : 01.05.2019
Date of RTI application 10.07.2015
CPIO's response 30.12.2015
Date of the First Appeal 02.02.2016
First Appellate Authority's response 25.05.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 09.06.2017
Date of earlier decision pronounced by the Commission 20.04.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the amount of Rs. 709.85 crore mentioned in a news item to be lying pending as tax for recovery from the political parties for the period between December, 2013 to June, 2015 and issues related thereto. The CPIO vide its letter dated 30.12.2015 denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act,2005 read with Section 138(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, was not initially available on the record of the Commission. The matter was earlier heard and decided by the Commission vide order dated 20.04.2017 wherein it was held as under:Page 1 of 11
"........Commission directs the FAA, an authority superior to the CPIO, to re-examine each point of the First Appeal, following the procedure laid down under Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 and pass a speaking order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. It was further observed that the CPIO had not acted in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and therefore is advised to be alert and cautious in the implementation of the RTI Act, 2005 with due diligence and care."
In compliance with the order of the Commission the JCIT (E), Range 1, New Delhi vide its order dated 25.05.2017 while concurring with the response of the CPIO dated 30.12.2015 denied disclosure of information u/s 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant vide letter dated 06.06.2017 and subsequent reminders approached the Commission. Furthermore he also approached the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana for issuance of appropriate direction in the matter. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide order dated 02.04.2019 in CWP No. 8869/2019 issued the following direction:
"In the light of the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of with directions to the Central Information Commission-respondent No.2 to consider and decide the application dated 06.06.2017 (Annexure P-6) in accordance with law by fixing a date therein after hearing the petitioner or his counsel at an early date. The date for hearing of the application be fixed not beyond a period of four weeks from today."
In compliance with the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the Dy. Registrar (Registry of IC-BJ) vide notice dated 15.04.2019 fixed 29.04.2019 as the date of hearing in the matter.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Ashwini Kumar, Inspector of IT;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Gurdarshan, Network Engineer NIC studio at Chandigarh confirmed the absence of the Appellant. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 06.04.2019 wherein while intimating the Commission about the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the matter, he submitted that since he would be leaving for abroad on 19.04.2019, he would be unable to attend the hearing/ proceeding before the Commission and therefore any appropriate decision on merits in the case be taken in his absence and conveyed. The Respondent reiterated the submissions of the CPIO / FAA and stated that due to the sensitivities of the matter, the information could not be disclosed. On being queried by the Commission about the amount of tax recovery due from the six political parties viz Congress, BJP, CPI (M), All India Trinamool Congress, Samajwadi party, NCP and BSP as contained in the news report published in HT Chandigarh dated 11.12.2013, the Respondent feigned ignorance and stated that no further details could be shared. It was noted by the Commission that the FAA did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 and merely sought shelter under Section 8 (1) (d) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 without giving a reasoned response in view of the earlier decision pronounced by the Commission dated 20.04.2017 in the instant matter. It may be noted that the Commission vide its order dated 20.04.2017 had emphasized on certain judgments pronounced by the Superior Courts with regard to the transparency and sanctity of the Page 2 of 11 election process and disclosure of particulars of candidates representing citizens in Parliament. A reference was also drawn to the report of the Law Commission (1999) extracts of which is again reproduced below:-
"3.1.2.1.On the parity of the above reasoning, it must be said that if democracy and accountability constitute the core of our constitutional system, the same concepts must also apply to and bind the Political Parties which are integral to parliamentary democracy. It is the Political Parties that form the Government, man the Parliament and run the governance of the country. It is therefore, necessary to introduce internal democracy, financial transparency and accountability in the working of the Political Parties. A political party which does not respect democratic principles in its internal working cannot be expected to respect those principles in the governance of the country. It cannot be dictatorship internally and democratic in its functioning outside."
The Commission in its previous decision had also observed that much before the legislative enactment of the RTI Act, 2005, our Judiciary, in a progressive interpretation of the Constitutional provisions, had paved the way towards delineating the Right to Information. In 1975, in State of UP vs. Raj Narain (1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333), Justice Mathew had ruled:
"In a government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way by their public functionaries."
Subsequently in judgments such as S.P. Gupta v. Union of India [1981] Supp. SCC 87, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held that "the concept of an open government is the direct emanation from the right to know which seems to be implicit in the right of free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a)."
Transparency and sanctity in the election process and disclosure of particulars of candidates representing citizens in Parliament is critical to enable members of a democratic society to be sufficiently informed so that they may cast their votes intelligently in favour of persons who are to govern them. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its important and significant decision passed by way of resolution dated 03.10.2017 declared that decisions of collegiums with reasons should be uploaded on website for ensuring transparency of collegium system.
" THAT the decisions henceforth taken by the Collegium indicating the reasons shall be put on the website of the Supreme Court, when the recommendation(s) is/are sent to the Government of India, with regard to the cases relating to initial elevation to the High Court Bench, confirmation as permanent Judge(s) of the High Court, elevation to the post of Chief Justice of High Court, transfer of High Court Chief Justices / Judges and elevation to the Supreme Court, because on each occasion the mater... The Resolution is passed to ensure transparency and yet maintain confidentiality in the Collegium system."
The Commission had observed that political parties continuously perform public functions and play a critical role in governance and socio-economic development in the country. The RTI Act, Page 3 of 11 2005 was enacted to ensure smoother and greater access to information, maximum disclosure and minimum exemptions and effective mechanism for access of information. The importance of right to information and subordination of right to privacy to the right to information due to larger public interest had been recognized by P. Venkatarama Reddi J. in his judgement in People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Anr. V. Union of India and Anr. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.490 OF 2002 with WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.509 OF 2002 AND WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 515 of 2002 wherein it had been held as under:
"By calling upon the contesting candidate to disclose the assets and liabilities of his/her spouse, the fundamental right to information of a voter/citizen is thereby promoted. When there is a competition between the right to privacy of an individual and the right to information of the citizens, the former right has to be subordinated to the latter right as it serves larger public interest. The right to know about the candidate who intends to become a public figure and a representative of the people would not be effective and real if only truncated information of the assets and liabilities is given"
Furthermore, Justice M.B. Shah in its decision in the aforementioned case of People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Anr. V. Union of India and Anr. WRIT PETITION had held as under:
"In our view, the aforesaid decision nowhere supports the said 30 contention. This Court only considered--to what extent a citizen would have right to privacy under Article 21. The court itself has carved out the exceptions and restrictions on absolute right of privacy. Further, by declaration of a fact, which is a matter of public record that a candidate was involved in various criminal cases, there is no question of infringement of any right of privacy. Similarly, with regard to the declaration of assets also, a person having assets or income is normally required to disclose the same under the Income Tax Act or such similar fiscal legislation. Not only this, but once a person becomes a candidate to acquire public office, such declaration would not affect his right of privacy. This is the necessity of the day because of statutory provisions of controlling wide spread corrupt practices as repeatedly pointed out by all concerned including various reports of Law Commission and other Committees as stated above."
Furthermore, the Commission in the decision in CIC/AT/A/2007/01029, CIC/AT/A/2007/01263, CIC/AT/A/2007/01264, CIC/AT/A/2007/01265, CIC/AT/A/2007/01266, CIC/AT/A/2007/01267, CIC/AT/A/2007/01268, CIC/AT/A/2007/01269, CIC/AT/A/2007/01270 dated 29.04.2008 had held as under:
"38. The laws of the land do not make it mandatory for political parties to disclose the sources of their funding, and even less so the manner of expending Page 17 of 24 those funds. In the absence of such laws, the only way a citizen can gain access to the details of funding of political parties is through their Income Tax Returns filed annually with Income Tax authorities. This is about the closest the political parties get to accounting for the sources and the extent of their funding and their expenditure. There is unmistakable public interest in knowing these funding details which would enable the citizen to make an informed choice about the political parties to vote for. The RTI Act emphasizes that "democracy requires an informed citizenry", and that transparency of information is vital to flawless functioning of constitutional democracy. It is nobody's case that, while all organs of the State must exhibit maximum transparency, no such Page 4 of 11 obligation attaches to political parties. Given that political parties influence the exercise of political power; transparency in their organization, functions and, more particularly, their means of funding is a democratic imperative, and, therefore, is in public interest. Insofar as the Income Tax Returns of political parties contain funding details these are liable for disclosure."
As regards the exemption claimed under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act by the CPIO/ FAA, the Commission observed that the information sought can be disclosed by competent authority if the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warranted disclosure of information. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the decision of M/s Shonkh Technologies Ltd. versus The State Information Commission, Maharashtra and Ors. WP No. 2912 of 2011 and WP No. 3137 of 2011 dated 01.07.2011 had held as under:
"On the own showing of the Petitioner, Clause (d) provides that the information can be disclosed if the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants such disclosure. Therefore, that clause as admitted by Mr. Manohar is not absolute. It does not say that the information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which, would harm the competitive position of a third party; cannot be demanded or if demanded, cannot be disclosed even if larger public interest warrants the same.".
Similarly, in the case of Reserve Bank of India & Ors. vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry & Ors., (2016) 3 SCC 525 the Supreme Court while dealing with the defence of RBI that it was in the fiduciary relationship with the Bank noted as follows:- ―
55. The Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition, 2005, defines fiduciary relationship as "a relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on the matters within the scope of the fiduciary relationship. Fiduciary relationship usually arise in one of the four situations (1) when one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who as a result gains superiority or influence over the first, (2) when one person assumes control and responsibility over another, (3) when one person has a duty to act or give advice to another on matters falling within the scope of the relationship, or (4) when there is specific relationship that has traditionally be recognized as involving fiduciary duties, as with a lawyer and a client, or a stockbroker and a customer. xxx
57. The term fiduciary relationship has been well discussed by this Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. (supra). In the said decision, their Lordships referred various authorities to ascertain the meaning of the term fiduciary relationship and observed thus: 20.1) Black's Law Dictionary (7th Edition, Page 640) defines 'fiduciary relationship' thus: A relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on matters within the scope of the relationship. Fiduciary relationships-such as trusteebeneficiary, guardian- ward, agent-principal, and attorneyclient-require the highest duty of care. Fiduciary relationships usually arise in one of four situations: (1) when one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who as a result gains superiority or influence over the first, (2) when one person assumes control and responsibility over another, (3) when one person has a duty to act for or give advice to another on matters falling within the scope of the relationship, or (4) when there is a specific relationship that has traditionally been recognized as involving fiduciary duties, as with a lawyer and a client or a stockbroker and a customer."
Page 5 of 11The Commission however observed that the matter of disclosure of Income Tax Return of an individual/ person is no longer res integra and has been adjudicated by several High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a series of decisions, most notably by the Apex Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
"14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Naresh Kumar Trehan v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta in W.P.(C) 85/2010 & CM Nos.156/2010 & 5560/2011 dated 24.11.2014 while observing that the act of filing returns with the department cannot be construed as public activity held that information contained in the income tax returns would be personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The relevant extract of the decision is mentioned below:
"25. Indisputably, Section 8(1)(j) of the Act would be applicable to the information pertaining to Dr Naresh Trehan (petitioner in W.P.(C) 88/2010) and the information contained in the income tax returns would be personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. However, the CIC directed disclosure of information of Dr Trehan also by concluding that income tax returns and information provided for assessment was in relation to a "public activity." In my view, this is wholly erroneous and unmerited. The act of filing returns with the department cannot be construed as public activity. The expression "public activity" would mean activities of a public nature and not necessarily act done in compliance of a statute. The expression "public activity" would denote activity done for the public and/or in some manner available for participation by public or some section of public. There is no public activity involved in filing a return or an individual pursuing his assessment with the income tax authorities. In this view, the information relating to individual assessee could not be disclosed. Unless, the CIC held that the same was justified "in the larger public interest"
However, the aforesaid observations were made in reference to individual assesses and not bodies/ organizations/ institutions incorporated entities such as listed or private limited companies and other legal entities such as societies. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Naresh Trehan had clarified on this issue in the following paragraphs:
"20. It has been contended by the petitioners that the expression "personal information" must also extend to information relating to corporate entities. Inasmuch as they may also fall within the definition of expression "person" under the General Clauses Act, 1897 as well as under the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, I am unable to accept this contention for the reason that the expression "personal information" as used in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the Act has to be read in the context of information relating to an individual. A plain reading of the aforesaid clause would indicate that the expression "personal information" is linked with "invasion of privacy of the individual". The use of the word "the" before the word "individual" immediately links the same with the expression "personal information"Page 6 of 11
21. Black's law dictionary, sixth edition, inter alia, defines the word "personal" as under:- "The word "personal" means appertaining to the person; belonging to an individual; limited to the person; having the nature or partaking of the qualities of human beings, or of movable property."
23. In my view, the aforesaid reasoning would also be applicable to the expression "personal" used in Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The expression 'individual' must be construed in an expansive sense and would include a body of individuals. The said exemption would be available even to unincorporated entities as also private, closely held undertaking which are in substance alter egos of their shareholders. However, the expression individual cannot be used as a synonym for the expression 'person'. Under the General Clauses Act, 1897 a person is defined to "include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not". Thus, whereas a person would include an individual as well as incorporated entities and artificial persons, the expression 'individual' cannot be interpreted to include such entities. The context in which, the expression "personal information" is used would also exclude it application to large widely held corporations. While, confidential information of a corporation is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) (d) of the Act, there is no scope to exclude other information relating to such corporations under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act as the concept of a personal information cannot in ordinary language be understood to mean information pertaining to a public corporation."
22. A perusal of the above definition also indicates that the ordinary usage of the word "personal" is in the context of an individual human being and not a corporate entity. The U.S. Supreme Court has also interpreted the expression "personal" to be used in the context of an individual human being and not a corporate entity. In the case of Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T Inc: 2011 US LEXIS 1899 the US Supreme Court considered the meaning of the expression "personal privacy" in the context of the Freedom of Information Act, which required Federal Agencies to make certain records and documents publically available on request. Such disclosure was exempt if the records "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy". The U.S. Supreme Court held that the expression "Personal" used in the aforesaid context could not be extended to corporations because the word "personal" ordinarily refers to individuals. The Court held that the expression "personal" must be given its ordinary meaning. The relevant extract of the said judgment is as under: "Person" is a defined term in the statute; "personal" is not. When a statute does not define a term, we typically "give the phrase its ordinary meaning," [Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S., 559 U.S. 133, 130 S. Ct. 1265, 176 L. Ed. 2d 1, 8 (2010)]. "Personal" ordinarily refers to individuals. We do not usually speak of personal characteristics, personal effects, personal correspondence, personal influence, or personal tragedy as referring to corporations or other artificial entities. This is not to say that corporations do not have correspondence, influence, or tragedies of their own, only that we do not use the word "personal" to describe them. Certainly, if the chief executive officer of a corporation approached the chief financial officer and said, "I have something personal to tell you," we would not assume the CEO was about to discuss company business. Responding to a request for information, an individual might say, "that's personal." A company spokesman, when asked for information about the company, would not. In fact, we often use the word "personal" to mean precisely the opposite of businessrelated: We speak of personal expenses and business expenses, personal life and work life, personal opinion and a company's view."
Therefore it is clear from the above observations that the expression "personal information" as used in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the Act has to be read in the context of information relating to an individual and that the ordinary usage of the word "personal" is in the context of an individual human being and not bodies/ organizations/ institutions incorporated entities such as listed or private limited companies and other legal entities such as societies. Moreover, the Commission felt that the information which is held and available with the Public Authority in its regulatory Page 7 of 11 capacity ought to be disclosed to the information seekers. In this context, the Commission referred to the following observation from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors., dated 16.12.2015, wherein interpreting section 2(f) and 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005, the following was held:
"62. The exemption contained in Section 8(1)(e) applies to exceptional cases and only with regard to certain pieces of information, for which disclosure is unwarranted or undesirable. If information is available with a regulatory agency not in fiduciary relationship, there is no reason to withhold the disclosure of the same. However, where information is required by mandate of law to be provided to an authority, it cannot be said that such information is being provided in a fiduciary relationship. As in the instant case, the Financial institutions have an obligation to provide all the information to the RBI and such an information shared under an obligation/duty cannot be considered to come under the purview of being shared in fiduciary relationship. One of the main characteristic of a Fiduciary relationship is "Trust and Confidence". Something that RBI and the Banks lack between them.
65. And in this case the RBI and the Banks have sidestepped the General public's demand to give the requisite information on the pretext of "Fiduciary relationship" and "Economic Interest". This attitude of the RBI will only attract more suspicion and disbelief in them. RBI as a regulatory authority should work to make the Banks accountable to their actions.
67. From reading of the above section it can be inferred that the Legislature's intent was to make available to the general public such information which had been obtained by the public authorities from the private body. Had it been the case where only information related to public authorities was to be provided, the Legislature would not have included the word "private body". As in this case, the RBI is liable to provide information regarding inspection report and other documents to the general public."
The Apex Court while dealing with several contempt petitions of its aforementioned order in Contempt Petition (C) No.928 of 2016 In Girish Mittal vs. Parvati V. Sundaram & ANR. (Transfer Case (C) No.95 of 2015) With Contempt Petition (C) No.412 of 2016 In (Transfer Case (C) No.96 of 2015) And Contempt Petition (C) No.59 of 2017 In (Transfer Case (C) No.95 of 2015) dated 26.04.2019 gave the Respondent a last opportunity to withdraw the disclosure policy insofar as it contains exemptions which are contrary to the directions issued by this Court. The relevant observations of the Court in the said matter are as under:
"2..................... While referring to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, this Court was of the opinion that the intent of the Legislature was to make available to the general public such information which had been obtained by the public authorities from private bodies. On the basis of the above observations, it was held that the RBI is liable to provide information regarding inspection reports and other documents to the general public.
10. Though we could have taken a serious view of the Respondents continuing to violate the directions issued by this Court, we give them a last opportunity to withdraw the disclosure policy insofar as it contains exemptions which are contrary to the directions issued by this Court. The Respondents are dutybound to furnish all information relating to inspection reports and other Page 8 of 11 material apart from the material that was exempted in para 77 of the judgment. Any further violation shall be viewed seriously by this Court."
Moreover, the Commission observed that information relating to larger public interest was sought by the Appellant which was not disclosed by the Respondent despite several representations by the Appellant and the earlier orders of the Commission which was in contravention with the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 while explaining the term "Public Interest" held:
"22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal (decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the following texts for defining the meaning of "public interest', which is stated as under:
"Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus:
"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :
Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."
In Mardia Chemical Limited v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while considering the validity of SARFAESI Act and recovery of non-performing assets by banks and financial institutions in India, recognised the significance of Public Interest and had held as under :
".............Public interest has always been considered to be above the private interest. Interest of an individual may, to some extent, be affected but it cannot have the potential of taking over the public interest having an impact in the socio-economic drive of the country..........."
In its previous order, the Commission had instructed the FAA to re-examine each point of the First Appeal, following the procedure laid down under Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 and pass a speaking order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order which was not properly complied with by the FAA. The DoPT in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, stated that:
Page 9 of 11"3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at.
5..............................The Act provides that the first appellate authority would be an officer senior in rank to the CPIO. Thus, the appellate authority, as per provisions of the Act, would be an officer in a commanding position vis a vis' the CPIO. Nevertheless, if, in any case, the CPIO does not implement the order passed by the appellate authority and the appellate authority feels that intervention of higher authority is required to get his order implemented, he should bring the matter to the notice of the officer in the public authority competent to take against the CPIO. Such competent officer shall take necessary action so as to ensure implementation of the RTI Act. "
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further. In its reply, the Respondent could not respond to the observations made by the Commission citing aforesaid decisions and feigned ignorance of the same.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent and considering the larger public interest involved in the matter as enunciated in the aforesaid judgments of the superior Courts and wider ramifications involving public at large, the Commission instructs the CPIO and Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (E) to provide point wise generic information regarding the recovery of taxes from the Political Parties as sought in the RTI application to the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which penal action under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 could be initiated. The compliance report should be submitted to the Appellant under intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal stands disposed with the above direction Bimal Julka (नबमल जुल्का) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) K.L. Das (के .एल.िास) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598/ [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 01.05.2019 Page 10 of 11 Copy to:
1- The Secretary, Department of Revenue, M/o Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 2- Chairman, CBDT, Department of Revenue, M/o Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 3- The DGIT (Exemptions), O/o DGIT(E) , Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Block E-2, 25th Floor, Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi - 110002.Page 11 of 11