Central Information Commission
Amit Goel vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 7 August, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CCAKP/A/2017/131507-BJ
Mr. Amit Goel
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & ACIT,
Income Tax Department
Circle - 1, Aayakar Bhwan,
Chorgaliya Road, Gaulapar, Kathgodam
Haldwani - 263126
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.08.2018
Date of Decision : 07.08.2018
Date of RTI application 28.07.2016
CPIO's response 20.09.2016
Date of the First Appeal 08.10.2016
First Appellate Authority's response 18.11.2016
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 12.05.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points regarding the copy of proposal sent to CIT Haldwani for taking the case for Scrutiny, copy of approval of Ld. CIT Haldwani, copy of notice u/s 143(2) stated to be issued on 25.09.2012 and the AO who had issued the notice with evidence of service and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 20.09.2016 provided a point wise reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the CPIOs response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 18.11.2016 concurred with the CPIOs response.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Krishan Prakash Garg Appellant's representative, in person; Respondent: Mr. Jitendra Kumar Sonkar, DCIT, Haldwani through VC;Page 1 of 4
The Appellant's representative reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information pertaining to points No. 05 and 06 of his RTI application had been wrongly denied under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. He presented a detailed written submission dated 05.08.2018 wherein the reply/order of the CPIO/FAA was reiterated. In addition, he also cited the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Mitsui & Co. Ltd vs. Commission of Income Tax & Ors. (2005) 195 CTR 104 (Del), New Kashmir & Oriental Transport Co. Pvt Ltd. Vs CIT (Alld) TC 61R 183 (1973) 092 ITR 0334, Vasantlal and Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC) and Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) and the decisions of the Commission in the matter M. K. Inhikar, Mumbai v.
Department of Posts, Maharashtra Circle, in Appeal No. 278/ICPB/2006 decided on 11.01.2006, in the matter Pramodkumar Jaikumar Mishrikotkar v. Director of Income Tax (Investigation) decide on 12.09.2006, in the matter Arindam Bandyopadhyay v. Public Service Commission, No. 1356 (3) decided on 07.07.2009 (WBIC), in the matter Jitendra Kumar v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited in File No. CIC/MA/A/2008/000225 decided on 31.03.2008, in the matter IB Kumaraswamy v. Dept. of Post, Vizianagaram in Appeal No. CIC/AD/A/05/00044/AD decided on 29.01.2009, in the matter Mahendra Pal v. Department of Post in Appeal No. CIC/MA/A/2008/01086 decided on 09.09.2008 and other several decisions to substantiate their contention in respect of disclosure of order sheet and that the same was not a personal record of AO for his private use nor confidential held by him in a fiduciary relationship.
Consistently it was emphasised that the order sheet was neither personal records of AO nor confidential document held by him in his fiduciary capacity. Replying, the Respondent while reiterating the reply of the CPIO / FAA submitted that the information sought at points No. 05 and 06 was confidential information of the public authority that could not have been disclosed. With respect to the judgments cited by the Appellant in support of his arguments, no substantial evidence could be adduced to negate them. The Commission was alarmed to note that the FAA had also denied information under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which was against the principle of judicial prudence.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Union of India vs. R.S. Khan WP (C) No. 9355 of 2009 and CM No. 7144 of 2009 dated 07.10.2010 held as under:
"This Court concurs with the view expressed by the CIC that in the context of a government servant performing official functions and making notes on a file about the performance or conduct of another officer, such noting cannot be said to be given to the government pursuant to a 'fiduciary relationship' with the government within the meaning of Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act. The Union of India cannot rely upon Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act, to deny information to the Petitioner in the present case. This Court finds no merits in any of the apprehensions expressed by the CPIO in the order rejecting the Respondent's application with reference to either Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act. The disclosure of information sought by the Petitioner can hardly endanger the life or physical safety of any person. There must be some basis to invoke these provisions. It cannot be a mere apprehension. As regards Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, there is no Page 2 of 4 question that nothings made in the files by government servants in discharge of their official functions is definitely a public activity and concerns the larger public interest. In the present case, Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act was wrongly invoked by the CPIO and by the Appellate Authority to deny information to the Respondent."
Similarly, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its decision dated 7/10/2013 [W.P. (C) 4079/2013 Union Public Service Commission vs. G S Sandhu] has held as under:
"11. In my view, the apprehension of the petitioner that if the identity of the author of the file notings is revealed by his name, designation or in any other manner, there is a possibility of such an employee being targeted, harassed and even intimidated by the persons against whom an adverse noting is recorded by him on the file of UPSC, is fully justified. Though, ultimately it is for the members of the UPSC who are to accept or reject such notings, this can hardly be disputed that the notings do play a vital role in the advice which UPSC ultimately renders to the concerned department. Therefore, the person against whom an adverse advice is given may hold the employee of UPSC recording a note adverse to him on the file, responsible for an adverse advice given by UPSC against him and may, therefore, harass and sometime even harm such an employee/officer of UPSC, directly or indirectly. To this extent, the officers of UPSC need to be protected. However, the purpose can be fully achieved by blocking the name, designation or any other indication which would disclose or tend to disclose the identity of the author of the noting. Denying the notings altogether would not be justified when the intended objective can be fully achieved by adopting such safeguards."
Furthermore, in a recent decision the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its order dated 12.02.2018 in W.P.(C) 7845/2013 (Paras Nath Singh Vs. Union of India) had held as under:
10. The contention that notings made by a junior officer for use by his superiors is third party information, which requires compliance of Section 11 of the Act, is unmerited. Any noting made in the official records of the Government/Public Authority is information belonging to the concerned Government/Public Authority. The question whether the information relates to a third party is to be determined by the nature of the information and not its source. The Government is not a natural person and all information contained in the official records of the Government / public authority is generated by individuals (whether employed with the Government or not) or other entities. Thus, the reasoning, that the notings or information generated by an employee during the course of his employment is his information and thus has to be treated as relating to a third party, is flawed.
11. Section 8 of the Act provides for exemption from disclosure of certain information and none of the provisions of Section 8 provide for blanket exemption that entitles the respondent to withhold all notings on a file.Page 3 of 4
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of aforementioned decisions, the Commission directs the CPIO to furnish the information sought by the Appellant in respect of points 05 and 06 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 07.08.2018
Page 4 of 4