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 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mr.R. Shunmugam vs Cbdt on 24 August, 2011

                                   1


              Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama 
                     Place, New Delhi­110066
     Telefax:011­26180532 & 011­26107254 website­cic.gov.in

      Adjunct to   Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2010/001787

 Appellant /Complainant        :         Sh. R. Shanmugam, 
Chennai    
Public Authority               :        Income Tax Department, 
Chennai
                               (Mrs. TVP Lata, CPIO and Sh. 
Vijay
                               Kumar, AA­through 
videoconferencing)

Date of Hearing                :       24 August 2011    
Date of Decision               :       24 August 2011
      
Facts:­ 

1. Further   to   Commission's   order   dated   19   April  2011 and 25 May 2011, the matter was heard once again  today   to   review   compliance   and   also   to   afford  opportunity   of   personal   hearing   to   the   CPIO   before  taking   a  decision  on  imposing  of  penalty  on him  for  not   having   complied   with   the   provisions   of   the   RTI  Act in responding to the appellate's RTI application.

2. Matter was heard today through videoconferencing  from   Chennai   where   both   parties   were   represented   as  above.

3. Appellant stated that he had received reply from  ITO, Business Ward VII (4) dated 5 January 2011 vide  which disclosure of information was denied under the  provisions   of   section   8     (1)(d)   and   (j)   of   the   RTI  Act.   He   had   made   appeal   before   the   1st   appellate  authority   namely,   Additional   CIT,   who   had,   vide   his  response   dated   28   June   2011   informed   the   appellant  that after taking action as prescribed under section  11(1) of the Act, decided in favour of upholding the  order of the CPIO. Respondent stated that the matter  pertained to third­party and that the RTI application  was more in the nature of TEP.

Decision notice Adjunct to   Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2010/001787 2

4. After   hearing   both   parties   Commission   is  satisfied  that  no   further   action  is required  to be  taken   by   the   respondent   with   regard   to   providing   of  information.   However   it   is   also   noted   that   due   to  lack   of   clarity   regarding   the   jurisdiction   of   the  matter   -   even   if   as   per   the   averments   of   the  respondent   that   the   subject   matter   was   scattered  across   the   jurisdiction   of   several   ITOs   /Assistant  CITs under the CCIT (CCA) is taken into account - the  RTI   application   dated   15   February   2010   has   finally  been responded to by the dealing CPIO/ITO as late as  5 January 2011 and by the 1st appellate authority on  28   June   2011.   This   does   not   present   a   satisfactory  picture   of   the   manner   in   which   the   RTI   regime   is  implemented   within   the   jurisdiction   of   CCIT   (CCA),  Chennai. The RTI application which was received by CC 

- I, Chennai was forwarded to ITO Range XIII (3) who  forwarded  it  to CIT IX  who forwarded  it to  Business  Ward   X   (4)   who   forwarded   it   to   Business   Ward   VI(3)  who forwarded it to Assistant Commissioner of Income  Tax   Headquarters   of   CCIT   II   floor   made   it   was  forwarded to business range VI who finally forwarded  it to business Ward VII (4).

5. Under   the   powers   given   to   the   Commission   under  section 19 (8) (a) the Commission directs CCIT - II,  Chennai   to   take   appropriate   steps   to   mark   the  territorial   jurisdiction   of   the   various   officers  under   him   for   handling   RTI   applications   within   the  timeframe   prescribed   under   the   RTI   act   and   issue  appropriate orders in this regard. It is a matter of  concern   that   even   after   6   years   of   the   passing   of  this transparency legislation, appropriate steps have  not   been   taken   to   put   in   place   a   strong  infrastructure   to   implement   the   provisions   of   this  Act as a as a result of which the RTI application has  been   tossed   around   without   any   concern   for   adhering  to the timeline prescribed under the Act. Al copy of  this order is also being forwarded to Chairman, CBDT.

6. In   order   to   compensate   the   appellant   for   the  harassment   caused   to   him   due   to   inordinate   delay   in  providing   reply   to   him   by   the   respondent,   Commission  directs   respondent   to   compensate   him   with   payment   of  Adjunct to   Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2010/001787 3 Rs. 2000 (Rupees Two thousands ) only which amount will  be paid to him within 2 weeks of receipt of this order.

7. Respondent CPIO is also directed to forward the  RTI application which as per the averments is in the  nature of TEP, within 2 weeks of receipt of the order  to   the   concerned   officers   of   the   Department   with  directions to take suitable action as per the law. 

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

(T. K. Mohapatra) Under Secretary & Dy. Registrar Tel. No. 011­26105027 Copy to:­
1. Shri R.Shanmugam # 6/5, Muthiah Chetty East Lane Old Washermenpet Chennai­600021 (T.N.)
2. Smt. TVP Latha The CPIO­cum­ACIT The Income Tax Department    121, M.G. Road,  Chennai­600034 (T.N.)
3. Sh.A.Vijaykumar The Appellate Authority Income Tax Department Company Circle V(2), Chennai­600034 (T.N.)
4. The Chairman  CBDT, North Block, New Delhi.
    

Adjunct to   Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2010/001787