Central Information Commission
Deepak Kumar Acharya vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 16 December, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CCABW/A/2018/620235-BJ
Mr. Deepak Kumar Acharya
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Income Tax Officer
Office of the Income Tax Officer
Dhenkanal Ward, Kunjakanta
Dhenkanal - 759001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.12.2019
Date of Decision : 16.12.2019
Date of RTI application 22.11.2017
CPIO's response 12.12.2017
Date of the First Appeal 08.02.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 09.03.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 14 points regarding the daily progress on his TEP dated 30.08.2017, till date; a copy of the preliminary assessments/investigation; recorded reasons for the delay; name and designation of the officials concerned; tentative date of completion of the investigation and other details relating to the Income Tax assessments of Mr. Harmohan Sarangi and Mr. Himansu Sarangi, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 12.12.2017, stated that the necessary action had already been initiated against the above mentioned Assesses. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 09.03.2018, upheld the CPIO's response and further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble SC in Girish Ramachandra Deshpande v. CIC and ors. as also the decisions of the Commission dated 25.06.2014 in Sh. Ramesh Chand Jain v. Delhi Transport Corporation, etc. Page 1 of 5 HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Deepak Kumar Acharya through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Kalpataru, ITO through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that his grievance relating to domestic violence case and the alleged action against his in-laws for IT violations through the TEP filed by him had not been addressed appropriately. Reacting to the replies of the CPIO / FAA, he stated that he was not the Third Party and that his TEP should have been acted upon by the IT Department. It was confirmed that a domestic violence case was sub-judice with JMFC Court, Angul. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated the submissions of the CPIO / FAA as also its written response sent to the Commission explaining that the said RTI application was misused by the Appellant to settle his domestic violence case. It was argued that no TEP had been filed by him and that the matter was sub-judice at JMFC Court, Angul which was used as an alibi to involve the IT authorities allegedly in order to prove his bonafide in the matter.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 29.11.2019, wherein he referred to the Commission's decisions in File No. as under:-
1. CIC/RM/C/2013/000430/BS/8983 Dated 06.11.2015;
2. CIC/RM/A/2014/900387/BS/8602 Dated 15.09.2015
3. CIC/MA/A/2006/00108 Dated 08.05.2006
4. CIC/SB/C/2016/900232/BJ Dated 14.02.2017 He further submitted that the CPIO (Income Tax Officer, Dhenkanal) had not provided any information on his application with a malafide intention and therefore, it was prayed to the Commission to direct the CPIO to furnish the complete information as also to impose penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, for malafide denial of information.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 10.12.2019, wherein while explaining the background of the matter, it was submitted that the Appellant/Complainant, Sri Deepak Kumar Acharya first filed a Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) on dt.30.08.2017 for investigation into source of income and tax liabilities of his in-laws (i.e. father-
in-law and brother-in-law) which was not actually a TEP. Generally an informer who was aware about the known sources of income as well as hidden sources of income of a person and also aware about the possession of black money by a person who did not file his Income Tax Return or evades payment of income tax on such hidden income, informs the Income Tax Department about the tax evasion by such person. Subsequently, the Income Tax Department takes the appropriate action as provided by the Income Tax Act, 1961 after analysing such TEP. In the instant case, the informer had not furnished any concrete information about tax evasion by his in-laws. He had simply forwarded the copy of the application filed by his wife, Swarnarekha Sarangi in the Court of the JMFC, Bhuban, Dist. Dhenkanal, Odisha under PWDV Act, 2005 and wanted the CPIO, i.e. the Income Tax Officer, Dhenkanal Ward, Dhenkanal to take action against his in-laws as per the provisions of different Sections like Section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69D etc. of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after analysing and explaining those Sections to the CPIO, i.e. the Income Tax Officer, Dhenkanal. In this TEP he had stated about the expenditure of Rs. 19 lakh incurred by his in-laws but this was not their income earned during the F.Y. 2015-16 as claimed by the Appellant. Hence, in his considered view, the application of the Appellant under Page 2 of 5 the RTI Act, 2005 which was nothing but a conversion of his so called TEP into an application under the RTI Act, 2005 may kindly be out rightly rejected. It was further submitted that Appellant was trying to misutilise the Government machinery by first filing a TEP which was not actually a TEP and then filing an application under the RTI Act, 2005 asking numerous questions which are not information but question in order to win the case in his favour filed by his wife under the PWDV Act, 2005 and pending before the JMFC, Bhuban, Dist. Dhenkanal. Moreover, the subject matter relating to information of income tax returns is "personal information" which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act unless involves a larger public interest as ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Girish v/s Central Information Commissioner. Therefore, it was prayed to the Commission to dismiss the matter accordingly.
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 Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "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."Page 3 of 5
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 framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."Page 4 of 5
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) (K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 16.12.2019 Page 5 of 5