Central Information Commission
Abhinav Gangwar vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 10 April, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCITC/A/2023/644432
Abhinav Gangwar .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Principal Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan,
Sector 17-E, Chandigarh - 160017 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16.12.2024
Date of Decision : 17.12.2024
Date of SCN Hearing : 08.04.2026
Date of SCN Decision : 10.04.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09.02.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 18.05.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 13.06.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 09.02.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. Kindly provide copy of Promotion order for the post of Income Tax Inspector (ITI) from Recruitment Year (R.Y.) 2000 to 2023 comprising of all the regular, review and supplementary DPC conducted by the Pr.CIC/CCITC/A/2023/644432 Page 1 of 13
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), North West Region, Chandigarh.
2. Kindly provide copy of Eligibility Roaster for the post of Income Tax Inspector containing the data from Recruitment Year 2010 to 2023 available with the O/o the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), North West Region, Chandigarh.
3. Kindly provide the information from the R.Y. 2010 to R.Y. 2023 in the tabular form only:- Sr. No./ R.Y./ No. of vacancies available for the promotion for the post of ITI/ No. of vacancies filled through DPCs (Regular, Review, Supplementary etc.)/ Balance of vacancies, if any with reason.
4. Kindly provide the relevant document(s) on the basis of which seats for the PH category candidates are reserved for the promotion for the post of Income Tax Inspector.
5. Kindly provide the information for the R.Y. from the year 2010 to 2023 in the tabular form only: Sr. No.
(a) / R.Y.
(b) / No. of vacancies available for PH category candidates for the promotion for the post of ITI
(c) / No. of vacancies filled against the number mentioned at column (c)
(d)/ Balance of vacancies, if any with reason
(e)/ Treatment of balance unfilled vacancies if mentioned at column (e) of PH candidate with supporting document basis on which treatment is done
(f) Note: RTI portal is not allowing tabular format due to which the tabular form is mentioned in such a manner."
2. Having not received any response from CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.05.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 13.06.2023, held as under.
"1. In view of the foregoing, the undersigned is deciding the matter on the basis of available records. The undersigned as 1st Appellate Authority has perused the information sought by the applicant and the contents of grounds for first appeal. The records of the CPIO relating to disposal of appellant's RTI application were called for and perused in order to verify the factual position.
2. In this regard, it is observed that the RTI application in this case has been disposed of by the CPIO vide order in letter no.2558 dated CIC/CCITC/A/2023/644432 Page 2 of 13 07.03.2023 u/s 7 of the RTI Act, 2005. It is pertinent to mention here that the order was returned to this office by the postal department with the comments "Item Returned Insufficient Address". It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant has filed the appeal after the expiry of the stipulated time but in view of natural justice, once again the order u/s 7 has been enclosed with this appellate order.
3. Accordingly, the appeal in the above term's stands disposed of."
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing on 16.12.2024:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri Oskar Bansal, Inspector, appeared through video conference.
4. The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 17.12.2024:
"The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, noted that the respondent stated that the CPIO has already replied to the RTI application vide letter dated 07.03.2023 which was returned undelivered with the remark "Item Returned Insufficient Address." However, the respondent failed to produce a copy of the reply dated 07.03.2023, if any, sent to the appellant along with proof of dispatch. As per the records available with the Commission, no reply to the RTI application was given by the respondent till the date of hearing.
The Commission failed to understand as to why the reply was sent to the appellant through offline mode whereas the RTI application was filed through online mode. There is nothing on record to show if the reply was sent by email which was duly mentioned in the online RTI application.
It is noted that Oskar Bansal, Income Tax Inspector, appeared on behalf of the CPIO. However, he failed to produce a copy of any authority letter issued by the competent authority for contesting the case before the Commission.CIC/CCITC/A/2023/644432 Page 3 of 13
It is noted that the present CPIO has not made any efforts to respond to the RTI application even upon receipt of hearing notice of the Commission. In view of the above, Shri Abhinav Agnihotri, the present CPIO and Shri Robin Bansal, the then CPIO are show caused to explain as to why maximum penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed upon each of them for not providing the information to the appellant. Oskar Bansal, Income Tax Inspector is given responsibility to serve a copy of this order as well as show cause notices to the present CPIO, the then CPIO also secure their attendance on the next date of hearing and submit their written explanations. All the written explanations (both the CPIOs) must reach the Commission within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
In addition to the above, the present CPIO is directed to provide point- wise information to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act along with original CPIO's reply dated 07.03.2023 and the FAA's order dated 13.06.2023 on his email id, which was mentioned in the RTI application, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The FAA to ensure compliance of this order."
Relevant Facts emerged during Show-Cause proceedings held on 07.04.2026:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent despite notice.
Respondent: Shri Oskar Bansal, Inspector, appeared through video conference.
5. Shri Robin Bansal, Dy. Director, Enforcement Directorate, has filed a written submission dated 06.01.2025 explaining complete facts of the case, content of the same are reproduced as under:
1. "The applicant Shri Abhinav Gangwar filed an online RTI application which was received in this office on 10.02.2023 via the online RTI portal on transfer from the CBDT, New Delhi vide registration no. CCITC/R/T/23/00075.
(Annexure-1)
2. The order u/s 7 of the RTI application was issued vide letter no.2558 dated 07.03.2023 and the same was sent via post to the to the address as mentioned in the RTI application (Speed Post No. EP73411125IN,) as there was some technical issues while uploading the order on the online RTI portal. (Annexure2) CIC/CCITC/A/2023/644432 Page 4 of 13
3. The order was returned to this office by the Postal Department with the comments "Item Returned Insufficient Address". (Annexure-3 & 4)
4. Subsequently, the applicant aggrieved by "No response within the time limit" filed the First Appeal which was received in this office on 18.05.2023. (Annexure-5)
5. The First Appellate Authority issued the Appellate order dated 13.06.2023, enclosing the CPIO's order which was emailed to the applicant on 13.06.2023. (Annexure-6 & 7)
6. Thereafter, the applicant approached the Hon'ble CIC resulting in the instant order.
As can be seen from the above submissions, the information was provided to the applicant within the time limit and the duties as CPIO were discharged in compliance with the RTI Act, 2005. It is therefore kindly requested that the Hon'ble CIC take a lenient view in the matter considering the above submissions and it is kindly requested that the personal appearance may kindly be dispensed with."
6. For the sake of clarity, point-wise reply dated 07.03.2023 provided to the Appellant is reproduced as under:
1. The requisite information sought by the applicant is available in the public domain.
2. Same as above.
3. Reservation to PwBD candidates are governed instructions/directions issued by DoPT/CBDT conveyed through OMs/Circulars from time to time which are readily available in public domain. Details of the same are given below:
i. No. 36012/1/2020 Estt. (Res. II)dated 17.05.2022. ii. No. 36035/02/2017-Estt (Res) dated 27.09.2022. iii. F. No. A-13013/02/2022-Ad. VII dated 30.08.2022.
4. The information sought is not maintained in the desired format by this office. In view of this fact, the information cannot be provided. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following judgement of the Apex Court.CIC/CCITC/A/2023/644432 Page 5 of 13
Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 20111)(SC) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case has held as under:
section 3 and the "At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of 'information' and 'right to information definitions of under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, abstracts, applicant may access such information, statistics, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. 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"
CIC in the case of Sh. Jai Kishan Vs. Reserve Bank of India (RBI), Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai (Decision F. No.216./IC(A)/2006 No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00608 Dated, the 31st August, 2006) held as under:
"Transparency in functioning of public authorities is expected to be ensured through the exercise of right to know, so that a citizen can scrutinize the fairness and objectivity of every public action. This objective cannot be achieved unless the information that is created and generated by public bodies is disclosed in the form in which it exists with them. Therefore, an information is to be provided in the form in which it is sought, u/s 7(9) of the Act And. if it does not exist in the form in which it is asked for and provided to the applicant, there is no way that proper scrutiny of public action could be made to determine any deviations from the established practices or accepted policies."CIC/CCITC/A/2023/644432 Page 6 of 13
5. Same as above It is pertinent to mention here that the undersigned is not the custodian of the above information as CPIO. The information supplied vide the instant order is as it has been received from the officer concerned in the charge of this Public Authority."
7. Shri Abhinav Agnihotri, DCIT (HQ) (Admin)-cum-CPIO vide letter dated 16.01.2025 has filed a written submission and relevant paras of the same are reproduced as under:
"2. On the receipt of the RTI application the then CPIO, Shri Robin Bansal, DCIT(HQ)(Admn), Chandigarh sought the information from the concerned officer in charge of maintaining the same vide letter dated 13.02.2023.
In response the officer in charge furnished the information sought vide letter dated 07.03.2023.
Subsequently, the then CPIO, Shri Robin Bansal, DCIT(Hq) (Admn), Chandigarh passed an order u/s 7 of the RTI Act, 2005 vide letter no.2558 dated 07.03.2023 (Annexure 2) within the time frame of 30 days as mandated by the RTI Act, 2005.
The said order could not be uploaded via the online RTI portal due to some technical issues but the same was sent via post to the address as mentioned in the RTI application vide Speed Post No. EP73411125IN, copy of the envelope enclosed as the proof of dispatch. (Annexure 3) The said order sent via post to the applicant was returned to this office by the Postal Department with the comments "Item Returned Insufficient Address".
(Annexure 4)
3. Subsequently, the applicant filed a First Appeal which was received in this office on 18.05.2023 (Annexure 5) via the online RTI portal. The applicant aggrieved by "No response within the time limit" filed the First Appeal.
The First Appellate Authority taking into consideration the applicants First Appeal (which was filed after more than 30 days of the order u/s 7 of the RTI Act, 2005 dated 07.03.2023) and in view of natural justice, supplied the copy CIC/CCITC/A/2023/644432 Page 7 of 13 of the CPIO's order dated 07.03.2023 along with the Appellate Order dated 13.06.2023 (Annexure 6).
The Appellate order along with the copy of the CPIO's order was emailed to the applicant on 13.06.2023 (Annexure 7).
Subsequently, the applicant approached the Hon'ble CIC by filing a Second Appeal against the First Appellate Authority's order dated 13.06.2023. 4.
The applicant in his submissions before the Hon'ble CIC submits that-
"Sir, I have filed the RTI application No. CBODT/R/E/23/00478 which was received in the O/o the CPIO i.e. DCIT (Hq.) (Admn.) O/o the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, NWR, Chandigarh on 10.02.2023. However, I did not receive any response/information from the CPIO neither within the stipulated time nor after that through any of the communication mode ie. through RTI portal itself/E-mail, postal address.
Thereafter, I preferred appeal before the first appellate authority Le. Addl. CIT (Hg.) (Admn.) O/o the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, NWR, Chandigarh vide RTI appeal application No. CCITC/A/E/23/00045 seeking the same information as sought for vide aforesaid RTI application, which was received in his office on 18.05.2023. The first appellate authority (FAA) disposed off the RTI appeal application vide order bearing No. Pr. CCIT/NWR/CB-III/A-24/2022-23/344 dated 13.06.2023 wherein the FAA informed that the aforesaid RTI application was disposed off by the CPIO within the time limit and provided the order, u/s 7 of the Act of the CPIO bearing No. Pr. CCIT/NWR/CB-III/RTT-164 2558 dated 07.03.2023. After perusal of the order u/s 7 of the RTI Act, 2005 dated 07.03.2023 and order u/s 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 dated 13.06.2023 passed by CPIO and the FAA respectively, it is found that the CPIO has simply replied on the many points that the information is available in public domain and thus it may kindly be noted that the desired information has partially been provided by the CPIO The information which was sought by me and the reply provided to me is being reproduced herewith, along with the appeal u/s 19(3) of the RTI, Act, 2005 against the order of the FAA on the specific points is as follows:-
1. Kindly provide copy of Promotion order for the post of Income Tax Inspector (ITI) from Recruitment Year (R.Y.) 2000 to 2023 comprising of all the regular, review and supplementary DPC conducted by the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), North West Region, Chandigarh.
2. Kindly provide copy of Eligibility Roaster for the post of Income Tax Inspector containing the data from Recruitment Year 2010 to 2023 available with the CIC/CCITC/A/2023/644432 Page 8 of 13 O/o the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), North West Region, Chandigarh."
5. As can be seen from the above Second Appeal filed by the applicant, he is dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO for only points1 & 2 of the original RTI application vide which the applicant had sought information w.r.t. 5 points as mentioned in Annexure 1.
Now reference is invited to the Hon'ble CIC order dated 17.12.2024 in File No CIC/CCITC/A/2023/644432 where in the Hon'ble CIC has observed the following
6. In response to the Hon'ble CIC's observation that "It is noted that Oskar Bansal, Income Tax Inspector, appeared on behalf of the CPIO. However, he failed to produce a copy of any authority letter issued by the competent authority for contesting the case before the Commission.
It is most respectfully informed that this oversight of not uploading the authority letter will not be repeated in the future and the same will be uploaded on the CIC portal well before the scheduled hearing.
7. In response to the Hon'ble CIC's observation that "The Commission failed to understand as to why the reply was sent to the appellant through offline mode whereas the RTI application was filed through online mode. There is nothing on record to show if the reply was sent by email which was duly mentioned in the online RTI application".
It is most respectfully informed that due to some technical issue the CPIO's order could not be uploaded through the online RTI portal but in future the same will be complied with.
8. In response to the Hon'ble CIC's observation that "It is noted that the present CPIO has not made any efforts to respond to the RTI application even upon receipt of hearing notice of the Commission. In view of the above, Shri Abhinav Agnihotri, the present CPIO and Shri Robin Bansal, the then CPIO are show caused to explain as to why maximum penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed upon each of them for not providing the information to the appellant. Oskar Bansal, Income Tax Inspector is given responsibility to serve a copy of this order as well as show cause notices to the present CPIO, the then CPIO also secure their attendance on the next date of hearing and submit their written explanations. All the written explanations (both the CPIOs) must reach the Commission within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
CIC/CCITC/A/2023/644432 Page 9 of 13It is most respectfully informed that the then CPIO Shri Robin Bansal, had responded to the applicants RTI within the time frame of 30 days of filing of the RTI application (Annexure 2). Further, the copy of the email sent to the then CPIO Shri Robin Bansal serving the copy of the order as well as show cause notice is enclosed with this letter (Annexure 8). Further, the response of the then CPIO Shri Robin Bansal to the show cause notice is also enclosed with this letter (Annexure 9).
9. In response to the Hon'ble CIC's direction that "In addition to the above, the present CPIO is directed to provide point-wise information to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act along with original CPIO's reply dated 07.03.2023 and the FAA's order dated 13.06.2023 on his email id, which was mentioned in the RTI application, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order".
It is most respectfully submitted that the same has been complied with by the CPIO vide order dated 16.01.2025 (Annexure 10) and the same has been emailed to the applicant (Annexure 11).
10. In conclusion, it is submitted that any error on the part of the then CPIO, Shri Robin Bansal and the current CPIO, Shri Abhinav Agnihotri was inadvertent and the same will not be repeated in the future.
The Hon'ble CIC is requested to take a lenient view considering the above submissions and it is kindly requested that the personal appearance may kindly be dispensed with."
8. The Respondent further submitted that a revised reply dated 08.04.2026 is provided to the Appellant on point Nos. 3 to 5, contents of the same are reproduced as under:
3. "The information sought is not maintained in the desired format by this office. In view of this fact, the information cannot be provided. In this regard, reliance is placed son the following judgement of the Apex Court.
Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011) (SC) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case has held as under:
"At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions CIC/CCITC/A/2023/644432 Page 10 of 13 of 'information' and 'right to information' under clauses) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act.
But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law on the regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. 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 CIC in the case of Sh. Jai Kishan Vs. Reserve Bank of India (RBI), Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai (Decision F. No.216./IC(A)/2006 No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00608 Dated, the 31st August, 2006) held as under:
"Transparency in functioning of public authorities is expected to be ensured through the exercise of right to know, so that a citizen can scrutinize the fairness and objectivity of every public action. This objective cannot be achieved unless the information that is created and generated by public bodies is disclosed in the form in which it exists with them. Therefore, an information is to be provided in the form in which it is sought, u/s 7(9) of the Act. And, if it does not exist in the form in which it is asked for and provided to the applicant, there is no way that proper scrutiny of public action could be made to determine any deviations from the established practices or accepted policies."
4. Reservation to PWBD candidates governed by instructions/directions issued through by DOPT/CBDT conveyed OMs/Circulars from time to time which are readily available in public domain. Details of the same are given below:
(i) No. 36012/1/2020 Estt. (Res. II)dated 17.05.2022.
(ii) No. 36035/02/2017-Estt (Res dated 27.09.2022.
(iii) F. No.A-13013/02/2022 Ad. VII dated 30.08.2022 CIC/CCITC/A/2023/644432 Page 11 of 13
5. Same reply as to point no.3 above."
Decision in respect of Show-Cause proceedings:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, observes that the show cause notice was issued to ascertain the reasons for the alleged non-
supply of information within the stipulated time and apparent procedural lapses on the part of the concerned CPIOs.
10. Upon careful consideration of the written submissions filed by the then CPIO as well as the present CPIO, it is noted that the RTI application was duly processed and a reply dated 07.03.2023 was issued within the prescribed time limit. However, the same could not be delivered to the Appellant as it was returned undelivered by the postal authorities with the remark "Item Returned Insufficient Address." It is further observed that subsequently, the First Appellate Authority, in the interest of natural justice, enclosed the copy of the CPIO's reply along with the appellate order dated 13.06.2023 and the same was also communicated to the Appellant via email.
11. The Commission also takes note of the explanation furnished regarding the technical issues faced in uploading the reply on the RTI portal at the relevant time. Further, compliance of the Commission's earlier order has been placed on record, including proving a revised and point-wise reply to the Appellant.
12. In view of the above, the Commission is satisfied that the lapse, as was noted in the previous order, was not deliberate or mala fide, but occurred due to bona fide reasons and circumstances beyond the immediate control of the CPIO. There appears to be no intention to obstruct the flow of information.
13. Accordingly, the Commission is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The show cause notices issued to the then CPIO and the present CPIO are hereby dropped.
CIC/CCITC/A/2023/644432 Page 12 of 1314. However, the Commission cautions the Respondent Public Authority to ensure that replies to RTI applications filed through the online portal are invariably uploaded on the portal and also sent through appropriate electronic means to avoid recurrence of such issues in future. Due diligence must be exercised in maintaining proper records of dispatch and communication.
The matter stands dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Sd/-
(S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh -160017 Shri Abhinav Gangwar Flat No. 56, Second Floor, Near Mata Gujri Gurudwara, Haibbowal Khurd, Ludhiana - Punjab, Ludhiana, 141001 CIC/CCITC/A/2023/644432 Page 13 of 13 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)