Central Information Commission
Mumbai Nasik Expresway Pvt Ltd vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 29 January, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
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/CCITM/A/2018/157844
Mumbai Nasik Expressway Limited ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Principal Commissioner of ... ितवादी/Respondent
Income Tax (Central)-4, 663, 6th
Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road,
Mumbai-400020
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 29.05.2017 FA : 27.07.2017 SA: 19.09.2018
CPIO : 23.06.2017 FAO : 22.08.2017 Hearing : 22.01.2021
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-4, Mumbai, seeking information regarding that as to whether the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 vide notice dated 24.02.2017 was a result of audit objection. If so, please provide a certified copy of audit objection.
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 27.07.2017 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The FAA responded on 22.08.2017. The appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Page 1 of 3Decision:
3. This Commission on the basis of the perusal of the facts on record observed that the RTI application, first appeal and second appeal has been filed on behalf of Mumbai Nasik Expressway Limited. There is nothing on record which shows that the RTI application, first appeal and second appeal has been filed by a 'citizen' as per Section 3 of the RTI Act. The Commission is of the view that a citizen has only a right to obtain information from a public authority under the RTI Act. Information should have been sought by a citizen in his individual capacity. In the present case, the appellant has nowhere mentioned that he/she has sought information in his/her individual capacity. The appellant has also not proved his/her identity or given any of his identity proof to show that he/she was seeking information in his/her individual capacity. The Commission is of the view that the appellant is a company but not an individual. Therefore, the RTI application of the appellant is not tenable as per Section 3 of the RTI Act.
4. Accordingly, the Commission treats the instant appeal as devoid of merits.
5. Hence, the instant appeal is dismissed as infructuous.
6. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date 22.01.2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 2 of 3
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-4, 663, 6th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020
2. Mumbai Nasik Expressway Limited, Page 3 of 3