Central Information Commission
Girish Mittal vs Director General Of Income Tax ... on 2 May, 2022
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/DGITE/A/2020/682444
Girish Mittal ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Commissioner of
Income Tax (Exemption), RTI
Cell, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan,
26th Floor, E2 Block, Civic
Centre, New Delhi-110002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20/01/2022
Date of Decision : 27/04/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 31/05/2020
CPIO replied on : 15/06/2020
First appeal filed on : 19/06/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 19/08/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20/08/2020
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 31.05.2020 seeking the following information regarding the PM Cares Fund:1
(a) Copies of all the documents submitted in the exemption application nos. CIT(Exemption), Delhi/2019-20/80G/11528.
(b) Kindly provide copies of file notings granting the approval.
(c) Kindly provide list of all the exemption applications filed in your office from 1st April, 2019 till 31st March, 2020 alongwith the date of filing and date on which they were granted exemption.
(d) If any application has been rejected, kindly provide the list of the of rejected applications with reasons for rejection.
The CPIO denied information to the appellant on 15.06.2020 under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.06.2020. FAA's order dated 19.08.2020 observed as follows:-
"..............PM CARES Fund' has been registered under the Registration Act, 1908 and being a body owned by, controlled by and established by the Government of India, this Fund (PM CARES Fund) is completely financed by donations received from individuals /organizations /CSRs /Foreign individuals /foreign organizations /PSUs and not at-all financed by the appropriate government and administered by the Private individual as Trustees, which is as compulsory condition to invoke Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and therefore, PM CARES Fund cannot be considered as a "Public Authority".
6. Therefore, 'PM CARES Fund' doesn't fall within the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the CPIO is not required to supply the information sought by the appellant under the Right to Information Act, 2005."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: (Upon being contacted for the audio conference, the Appellant requested for the case to be decided on merits as he was unable to access the case record or plead his case due to a medical exigency.) 2 Respondent: Vikas Jhakar, Asstt. Commissioner & CPIO present through audio conference.
The CPIO submitted that the PM Care Fund does not fall within the purview of the RTI Act as it does not receive any contribution from the government but has been purely based on the contributions received from the citizens and to the best of his knowledge there is no record available with their office with respect to points (a) & (b) of the RTI Application. He further submitted upon a query from the Commission that information regarding the availability of documents related to the exemption will have to be ascertained from the concerned exemption division. In this regard, he requested for additional time to present his case as he had assumed the charge of the CPIO only recently.
The matter was reserved and reconvened through audio conference mode on the next working day i.e 24.01.2022.
The CPIO was assisted by Pratyaksh Gupta, Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department who reiterated the aspect of PM Cares Fund not being financed by the Govt. of India and regarding PM Cares Fund not being amenable to Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
The Commission advised the Standing Counsel that the re-hearing has been scheduled to only find out about the availability of the records sought for at points (a) & (b) of the RTI Application. To this, Pratyaksh Gupta, Standing Counsel submitted that only the Registration Certificate submitted by the applicant and the application form submitted in the prescribed format is available.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and upon hearing the submissions of the CPIO observes that the issue of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act has been unnecessarily dragged into the matter since the Appellant has not filed the RTI Application with PM Cares Fund, but with a public authority itself. Here, it is relevant to bring out the provisions of Section 2(j) and 2(f) of the RTI Act which clearly stipulates that:
Section 2(j)- "...."right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to--..........."3
Section 2(f)- "...."information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force..."
Upon a conjoint reading, it becomes essentially clear that the RTI Application of the Appellant has to be construed in the spirit of the aforementioned provisions of the Act.
Nonetheless, the Commission does not find any scope of relief to be ordered in the matter as the information sought for at para (c) and (d) of the RTI Application entails disclosure of personal details of various third-party entities and therefore, stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. As for the information sought for at paras (a) & (b) of the RTI Application, the CPIO is directed to provide a reply to the Appellant indicating the factual position as stated by the Standing counsel during the hearing. The said reply shall be provided to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4