Pardeep Bajaj vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 29 October, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Pardeep Bajaj vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 29 October, 2021

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)O/o. the Income Tax Officer, (Investigation), Minto Road, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information on eight point including inter - alia is as under:-

1. Has any Civil action been initiated taken on the undersigned's complaint under cover note reference no. PB/2016-17/514 dated 29-03-

2017 addressed to the Directorate General of Income Tax Investigation, Page 1 of 7 Delhi, 2nd Floor, E-2, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055. Submitted by hand at your office vide its diary no. NIL dated 03.04.2017 photocopy of consisting four pages remainder encloures-68 pages (totaling to 4+68=72 pages) already available in your records of the said complaint enclosed herewith as per annexure Á'(i to iv) (page Nos. 4 to

7) for your reference, or not? etc. CIC/CCITD/A/2020/110842 The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)O/o. the Income Tax Officer, (Investigation), Minto Road, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information on eight point including inter - alia is as under:-

1. Has any Civil action been initiated taken on the undersigned's complaint under cover note reference no. PB/2016-17/517 dated 29-03-

2017 addressed to the Directorate General of Income Tax Investigation, Delhi, 2nd Floor, E-2, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055. Submitted by hand at your office vide its diary no. NIL dated 03.04.2017 photocopy of consisting four pages remainder encloures-26 pages (totaling to 3+26=29 pages) already available in your records of the said complaint enclosed herewith as per annexure Á'(i to iii) (page Nos. 4 to

6) for your reference, or not? etc. CIC/CCITD/A/2020/110843 The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)O/o. the Income Tax Officer, (Investigation), Minto Road, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information on eight point including inter - alia is as under:-

1. Has any Civil action been initiated taken on the undersigned's complaint under cover note reference no. PB/2016-17/518 dated 29-03-

2017 addressed to the Directorate General of Income Tax Investigation, Delhi, 2nd Floor, E-2, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055. Submitted by hand at your office vide its diary no. NIL dated 03.04.2017 photocopy of consisting four pages remainder encloures-51 pages (totaling to 3+51=54 pages) already available in your records of the said complaint enclosed herewith as per annexure Á'(i to iii) (page Nos. 3 to

5) for your reference, or not? etc. Page 2 of 7 CIC/CCITD/A/2020/110844 The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)O/o. the Income Tax Officer, (Investigation), Minto Road, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information on eight point including inter - alia is as under:-

1. Has any Civil action been initiated taken on the undersigned's complaint under cover note reference no. PB/2016-17/519 dated 29-03-

2017 addressed to the Directorate General of Income Tax Investigation, Delhi, 2nd Floor, E-2, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055. Submitted by hand at your office vide its diary no. NIL dated 03.04.2017 photocopy of consisting four pages remainder encloures-22 pages (totaling to 3+22=25 pages) already available in your records of the said complaint enclosed herewith as per annexure Á'(i to iii) (page Nos. 3 to

5) for your reference, or not? etc. CIC/CCITD/A/2020/110840 The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) O/o. The Income Tax Officer, (Investigation), Minto Road, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information on eight point including inter - alia is as under:-

1. Has any Civil action been initiated taken on the undersigned's complaint under cover note reference no. PB/2016-17/515 dated 29-03-

2017 addressed to the Directorate General of Income Tax Investigation, Delhi, 2nd Floor, E-2, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055. Submitted by hand at your office vide its diary no. NIL dated 03.04.2017 photocopy of consisting four pages remainder encloures-41 pages (totaling to 3+41=44 pages) already available in your records of the said complaint enclosed herewith as per annexure Á'(i to iii) (page Nos. 4 to

6) for your reference, or not? etc. CIC/CCITD/A/2020/110841 The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)O/o. the Page 3 of 7 Income Tax Officer, (Investigation), Minto Road, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information on eight point including inter - alia is as under:-

1. Has any Civil action been initiated taken on the undersigned's complaint under cover note reference no. PB/2016-17/516 dated 29-03-

5) for your reference, or not? etc.

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 01-10-2019denied information sought by the applicant under section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 17-09-2019 and requested that the information should be provided to him.The FAA vide order dated 15-11- 2019 upheld CPIO's reply and disposed the Appeal.He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Ms. NishaWadehal, CPIO/ITO attended the hearing through audio-call.

4. Both the parties submitted their written submissions and the same has been taken on record.

5. The appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI Application and submitted that the desired information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 24.04.2019. He has raised an issue w.r.t the reply provided to the point no. 6 of all the above RTI Applications.

6. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 01.10.2019, they have informed the appellant that the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 has by notification dated 27.03.2008 placed the office of DGIT (Investigation) in the second schedule of the RTI Act, 2005, as an intelligence and security organization excluded from the purview of the RTI Act. Therefore, their office Page 4 of 7 is exempted from the operation of the RTI Act subject to the provisions of the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act.

Decision:

7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information regarding the Civil and Criminal action taken against his complaint and other related queries. That the appellant is aggrieved with the reply provided to the point no. 6 of the above RTI Applications wherein the appellant has sought the diary number and date through which the said complaint was received by the respondent. That the respondent has already informed the appellant that their office being an exempted organization cannot provide the requested information as sought in the above RTI Applications

8. The Commission at the outset observed that as submitted by the Respondent, their office is included in the list of organization exempted from the purview of RTI Act, 2005 as per section 24 r/w second schedule to the RTI Act, 2005. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of CPIO, Directorate of Enforcement vs. Mr. Bimal Kumar Bhattacharya WP (C) No. 345/ 2018 dated 19.02.2018 had held as under:

"6. Plainly, the impugned order cannot be sustained as it is contrary to the expressed language of Section 24(1) of the Act. Section 24(1) of the Act expressly excludes intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule of the Act from the purview of the Act. Admittedly, the Directorate of Enforcement is included in the Second Schedule to the Act and, thus, cannot be called upon to disclose information under the provisions of the Act. The only exception carved out from the exclusionary clause of Section 24(1) of the Act relates to information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. Undisputedly, the information sought for by the petitioner cannot be categorized as such information.

7. The aforesaid question has also been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CPIO Intelligence Bureau v. SanjivChaturvedi :

242 (2017) DLT 542, wherein this Court held that an organisation specified in the Second Schedule of the Act was excluded from the purview of the Act.

8. In view of the above, the petition and the pending application are allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, it is clarified Page 5 of 7 that this would not preclude the respondent from instituting any proceedings that he may be advised against M/s Thomas Cook (India) Limited, if so, entitled in law."

9. In view of the above matrix, information sought cannot be provided to the appellant. However, during the course of hearing, the appellant alleged that the corruption is involved in these cases as sought in the instant RTI Application.

Hence, information sought should not be denied to him. The Commission observes that in the matters where the information sought about corruption against the officials of public authority or violation of human rights by the public authority, the information shall only be provided, wherein in the present matter, the appellant is seeking information related to the investigation being done by public authority, hence informations relating to such investigation is exempted from disclosure under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005.

10. Moreover, although the respondent being an exempted organization is not entitled to provide any information as per the provision of the RTI Act, however the acknowledgment in terms of date of the complaint received in their office can be provided to the appellant. Therefore, the respondent is permitted to give the confirmation of receiving the complaint of the appellant as sought at point no. 6 of the RTI Application without providing any other detail being their internal documentation.

11. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

12. With the above observations, all the above appeals are disposed of.

13. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.


                                                            नीरजकु मारगु ा)
                                        Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु       ा
                                                               सूचनाआयु )
                                     Information Commissioner (सू

                                                       दनांक / Date : 29-10-2021
Authenticated true copy

(अिभ मािणतस#यािपत ित)

S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)




                                                                       Page 6 of 7
 Addresses of the parties:

1.    CPIO
      O/o. the Income Tax Officer, (Investigation)
      Unit-2, Room No. 139, Block-C,
      Dr. SPM Civic Centre, Minto Road,
      New Delhi-110002

2.    Mr. Pardeep Bajaj




                                                     Page 7 of 7

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission