Central Information Commission
Mrp Anusuya Devi vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax , ... on 21 April, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000470/BS/10213
21 April 2016
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Ms. P Anusuya Devi,
No - 4,5th Street, Jeevan Nagar,
Adambakkam, Chennai - 600088
Respondent : CPIO / ITO - Ward-13(1),
Income Tax Department,
O/o the ITO Non Corporate - Ward-13(1),
Room No - 403, IVth Floor, Annexe Building,
Aayakar Bhawan, No - 121,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600034
RTI application filed on : 16/07/2015
PIO replied on : 21/08/2015
First appeal filed on : 31/08/2015
First Appellate Authority order : 01/10/2015
Second Appeal dated : 16/10/2015
Information sought:
1. Whether I have filed Return of Income for the AY 2009-10 on 1 July 2009 under receipt No. 102735 on 1 July 2009 showing total income of Rs. 164580/- and claiming refund of Rs. 340171/- under receipt no. 102735 with Income Tax office, Tambaram Range? (Yes/No)
2. Whether the above RI was processed under section 143(1)? (Yes/No) If 'Yes', what is the date of processing of the return?
3. Is it right that no refund was issued to me on processing the said return of income? (Yes/No)
4. Whether letter ITO/BW I(1)/Grievance/10-11 dated 25/09/12 addressed to the ITO (HQ-
Pers), O/o CCIT Chennai- 1, Chennai mentioning therein that there is capital gain escaped assessment under section 147 of IT Act and the Income Tax Officer, ward 1(1) has reason to believe that my case is a fit case for reopen of assessment under section 148 of IT Act with copy to me and the JCIT, Tambaram Range, CCIT IV, Chennai and ITO(HQrs)-VII, Chennai was sent or not? (Yes/No)
5. Whether Notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 under PAN APIPA3864K dated 21/09/2012 requiring me to deliver to the Income Tax Officer BW I(1) West Tambaram, Chennai - 45 within 30 days from the date of service of that notice a return in the prescribed form of my income for the AY 2009-10 was sent or not? (Yes/No)
6. Whether letter dated 16/10/2012 received by Income Tax Office, Tambaram on 17/10/2012 mentioning therein that in response to the above notice received by me on 29/09/2012. I have requested to treat the return of income filed by me on 1 st July 2009 as necessary compliance with the claim that the notice issued under section 148 of IT Act 1961 is not tenable in law in as much as the Assessing Officer should not be in possession of any new materials excepting the materials furnished by me in reply to the queries pertaining to refund and hence the proceedings are illegal and to furnish copy reasons necessitating to issue notice under Section 146 for my reply? (Yes/No) Page 1 of 2
7. Whether the time limit of 30 days for filing the Return of Income for the AY 2009-10 had to expire only on 28/10/2012 when I have received notice u/s 148 IT Act 1961 dated 21/09/2012 or not? (Yes/No)
8. Whether notice under Section 143 (2) IT Act 1961 dated 28/09/2012 in PAN No. APIPA3864K posting the case for hearing on 18th Oct 2012 at 11.00 AM was issued by the Income Tax Officer WD I(1), Tambaram Range, Tambaram or not? (Yes/No).
9. Whether my Advocate sent letter dated 01/12/2012 received by the Income Tax Officer BW I(1), Tambaram on 03/12/2012 or not? (Yes/No)
10. Whether letter dated 09/05/2014 sent by me on 23/05/2015 by RPAD was received 27 th May 2014 by ITO, BW I (1), Tambaram or not?
11. Whether the assessment reopened u/s 147 as per notice u/s 148 dated 21/09/2012 was completed and orders passed? (Yes/No) If yes, whether the said order has been served on me? (Yes/No) and provide photocopy of acknowledgment for having served the assessment order and copy of assessment order and I shall pay the charges therefore on hearing from you.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent Respondent: Ms. Abirami S CPIO through VC The appellant was given an opportunity to participate in the hearing but she is absent. The CPIO stated that the appellant's RTI application dated 16/07/2015 was replied vide letter dated 21/08/2015. She further submitted that from a perusal of the RTI application it can be seen that the applicant is asking for information in 'yes' or 'no' format which is not covered by the definition of 'information' as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act. She informed that income tax return of the applicant for AY 2009-10 has been reopened and proceedings are in progress. She added that copies of return and other relevant records are available with the appellant/assessee.
Decision notice:
At the outset it is clarified that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Similarly, redressal of grievance, reasons for non compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent public authority are outside the purview of the Act.
The CPIO has submitted that the information sought has been furnished to the appellant vide letter dated 21/8/2015. The appellant has not availed the opportunity to appear before the Commission to canvass her case/contest the CPIO's submissions. In the above circumstances we are unable to provide any relief.
The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 2 of 2