Central Information Commission
Adarsh Kishor Sharma vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 30 January, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCITJ/A/2022/608596
Adarsh Kishor Sharma ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o Income Tax Officer,
Ward-Tonk, RTI Cell,
Kala Baba, Purani Tonk,
Kailash Bhawan,
Tonk-304001, Rajasthan. .... ितवाद गण
/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24/01/2023
Date of Decision : 24/01/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19/11/2021
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 20/12/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : 19/01/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09/02/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 19.11.2021 seeking the following information:1
"PAN Card Number: AFEPS7749R give information about how much exemption in HRA from 2003 to 2021 please give details."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.12.2021. FAA's order dated 19.01.2022 held as under:-
".........In order to decide the appeal, a letter was written to applicant to file reply in support of his claim; alongwith directions were also given to CPIO & ITO, Ward-Tonk to submit a factual report in this matter. In compliance to the letter, no reply/submission has been received from the applicant till date. Besides, CPIO & ITO, Ward-Tonk has also filed his report on 19.01.2022 stating that "this office has received no such RTI application from Shri Adarsh Kumar Sharma through either official e-mail of by any office mode."
Looking to the facts of the case and report submitted by the CPIO & ITO, Ward-Tonk, it is found that the CPIO & ITO, Ward-Tonk has not received any RTI application nor has the applicant provided any copy of RTI filed. Further, it is seen that if the applicant had provided the copy of RTI during the RTI appellate proceedings, then the same would have been forwarded to CPIO & ITO, Ward-Tony for further necessary action, However, in the absence of the details sought for by the RTI applicant, no such action can be done by this office.
Further, since the CPIO & ITO, Ward-Tonk has not received the RTI application, the RTI applicant is requested to file RTI before CPIO & ITO, Ward-Tonk so that necessary action may be taken as per RTI Act, 2005.
Therefore, by these remarks, the application of the appellant is disposed of accordingly."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.2
Respondent: Raja Babu, ITO & CPIO present through video conference.
The CPIO reiterated the FAA's order and affirmed that the instant RTI Application was never received in their office. He further submitted that upon receipt of the copy of the RTI Application with the hearing notice it was observed that the PAN referred to therein pertains to a third party and therefore even at this stage the desired information cannot be disclosed to the Appellant as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and considering the submissions of the CPIO finds no scope of intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
सरोज पुनहािन)
Saroj Punhani (सरोज हािन
सूचना आयु&)
Information Commissioner (सू
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मा(णत स)या*पत ित)
(C.A. Joseph)
Dy. Registrar
011-26179548/ [email protected]
सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक /
3