Central Information Commission
Pravin Chandra Roy vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 28 March, 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/CCAPT/C/2022/661598
Pravin Chandra Roy िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Income Tax (Exemptions),
RTI Cell, Dhanbad, Lubi Circular Road,
Dhanbad-82600 I, Jharkhand. ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22/03/2023
Date of Decision : 22/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 30/07/2022
CPIO replied on : 23/09/2022
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18/11/2022
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 30.07.2022 seeking the following information:
"1. Kindly provide certified copies of list of all institutions/organisations/ NGOs which are registered under Indian Trust Act 1882, Societies Registration Act, 1860 and under specific state acts of Bihar and Jharkhand, which are granted tax exemption under Income Tax Act in the States of Bihar and Jharkhand in the financial years 2019-20,2020-21,2021-22 and 2022-23.1
2. Kindly provide certified copies of all documents submitted by the all institutions/ organisations/NGOs which are registered under Indian Trust Act 1882, Societies Registration Act,1860 and under specific state Acts of Bihar and Jharkhand, which are granted tax exemption under Income Tax Act in the States of Bihar and Jharkhand in the financial years 2019-20,2020-21,2021-22 and 2022-23."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 23.09.2022 stating as under:
"1. List of all institutions organizations/NGOs which are granted tax exemption in the financial years 2019-20, 2020-21,2021-22 and 2022-23 are enclosed as Annexure-A.
2. In respect of this information, it is not cleared that which document is required by the applicant. Hence, it is requested; please specify which document is required."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint stating that despite clarifying to the CPIO vide an email dated 26.09.2022 that documents submitted by the entities be supplied to him, the CPIO did not provide the information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Represented by Madan Mohan Priya through audio conference. Respondent: Dhaneshwar Mahto, ITO (Exemptions) & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Rep. of Complainant stated that he is aggrieved with the fact that the CPIO did not provide any information on point no.2 of the RTI Application.
The CPIO submitted that in furtherance of the reply already provided to point no.2 of the RTI Application, upon receipt of the clarification email, the Complainant pursued the matter through a phone call from No. 07678192052 which was reportedly made by the lawyer (as claimed) of the applicant Shri Pravin Chandra Roy. That the CPIO had categorically clarified over phone, to the caller that the information in possession of the Income Tax Department (as sought by the applicant in point No. 2) is 'confidential' in nature, and such confidential information calls for checking the applicability of section 8(1)(e) and section 11(1) 2 of the RTI Act, before making any such disclosure. He furthermore added that subsequently there was a FAA's order dated 25.11.2022 also in the matter, wherein the CPIO was directed to provide these details to the appellant, after verifying the applicability, the application and the invocation of the express provisions of section 8(1|(e) of the RTI Act. 2005. Since, the information involved confidentiality and fiduciary relationship, same could not have been provided and the Complainant was informed accordingly.
The Rep. of Complainant expressed his agitation that despite the FAA's order, the information has not been provided by the CPIO.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes at the outset that the information sought for at point no.2 of the RTI Application is not specific in nature as it refers to "all" societies and "all" documents submitted by these societies, which may entail humungous data, and may also attract appropriate exemption clauses of the RTI Act. Therefore, the reply of the CPIO informing the Appellant that the query lacks clarity bears no infirmity. Moreover, the clarification claimed to have been provided by the Complainant vide his email is also a mere reiteration of his original RTI query contents without any added material or substance bearing specifics. Similarly, expecting the CPIO to collect and collate 'all documents' of 'all societies' will entail disproportionate diversion of the resources of the public authority as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
In this context, reference may be had of a judgment of the Apex Court in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein the following observations against impractical demands for information under the RTI Act were recorded:
"....The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Further, it may be noted that grounds of the instant Complaint is restricted to the original reply of the CPIO and to that extent no action is warranted in the matter.3
The factual matrix of the case as submitted by both the parties during the hearing refer to the aftermath of the instant complaint. In other words, the FAA's order or the response of the CPIO thereafter is not the subject matter of the instant complaint, hence the same is not being called into question.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4