Central Information Commission
Mr. Rayapati Sambasiva Rao vs Cbdt on 7 March, 2011
Central Information Commission
Room No.296, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama
Place, New Delhi110066
Telefax:01126180532 & 01126107254 websitecic.gov.in
Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2011/000286
Appellant /Complainant : Shri Rayapati
Sambasiva Rao, New Delhi
Public Authority : O/o the Commissioner of
Income Tax,
Guntur ( Sh. Kiran Kumar,
ITO/CPIO and
Sh.S.S.Venkateswaralam Rao,AA
-through
Videoconferencing)
Date of Hearing : 07/03/2011
Date of Decision : 07/03/2011
Facts:
1. The applicant preferred RTI application dated 26 October 2010 before the CPIO, Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur vide which he sought to have copies of Income Tax Assessment returns filed by Shri Kanna Lakshmi Narayana for the assessment years 1990-91, 1995-96, 2000 - 2001, 2005
- 06 and 2009 - 10.
2. The CPIO vide his order dated 10 November 2010 denied disclosure of information on the grounds that the same is protected under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The appellant appealed against the above order before the first appellate authority by preferring appeal dated 22 November 2010.
3. Vide FAA order dated 30 November 2010 the matter was disposed of by upholding the order of the CPIO and dismissing the appeal. The order brought out the fact that the thirdparty in respect of whom information was sought was Minister for Heavy Industry in Andhra Pradesh and that the appellant had sought information 'in public interest' on the grounds that there were complaints of corruption made against the said third party before the DirectorGeneral of ACB, AP and before the honourable Lok Ayukta.
4. Not being satisfied by the above orders, the appellant approached the Commission in second appeal. The matter was heard today. Respondent was heard through videoconferencing. Appellant was present in person through his authorised representatives and fervently argued in favour of disclosure of the information sought by him. While respondent reiterated the argument already put forth in the above mentioned orders, appellant argued that disclosure of the income tax returns of the third party was merited on account of the fact that he believed that wealth had been amassed by misusing the public office and position and powers by the third party along with evasion of tax and that the disclosure of information would bring out the truth and promote probity in public life which will strengthen the democratic process. Appellant also admitted that he had lodged a complaint before the honourable AP Lokayukta and the DirectorGeneral, Anti - corruption Bureau, Hyderabad in this regard pertaining to the thirdparty. Appellant has also quoted from previous decision of the Commission and observations of the Apex Court in support of his case in his written submission. Respondent stated that the matter was still pending before the Lok Ayukta and the ACB.
Decision
5. After hearing both parties the Commission observes that the appellant has already furnished information held by him pertaining to thirdparty which in his view merit investigation particularly on account of thirdparty holding public office to the agencies who are charged with the responsibility of investigating/adjudicating on the matter. The Commission is firmly of the view that individuals cannot arrogate upon themselves the sole responsibility of looking into the financial status of other persons on an apprehension that wealth has been accumulated through wrongdoing/evasion of taxes. This role has been assigned to designated organisations and individuals are free to forward information held by them in this regard and which in their view require deeper investigation particularly if it pertains to a person holding high public office. This action has already been taken by the appellant. Therefore the argument that justice in this matter which is linked to probity in public life can only be done through disclosure of income tax returns of the thirdparty to the appellant does not hold.
6. However the CPIO has also chosen to deny the information sought by the appellant without taking action as prescribed under section 11 (1) of the RTI Act which in fact should have been done in the first instance.
7. Therefore the matter is remanded back to the CPIO to take action as prescribed under the above mentioned section and after receiving the response of the thirdparty take decision as to whether or not to disclose information. Action as above to be taken within two weeks of receipt of the order.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu) Information Commissioner (DS) Authenticated true copy:
(T. K. Mohapatra) Under Secretary & Dy. Registrar Tel No. 01126105027 Copy to:
1. Sh. Rayapati SambasivaRao Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha C1/20, Pandara Park, New Delhi110003
2. The Central Public Information Officer O/o the Commissioner of Income Tax (Dy. Commissioner of IT, Circle1(1) C.R. Building, Kannavari Thota, Guntur.
3. The Appellate Authority Office of Commissioner of Income Tax (RangeI) CR Building, Kannavari Thota, Guntur