Central Information Commission
M Gupta vs Pr. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 14 January, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCITD/A/2024/631071
M Gupta .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Principal Chief Commissioner
of Income Tax, Room No 356
C.R. BUILDING, IP Estate,
New Delhi, Delhi - 110002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13.01.2026
Date of Decision : 13.01.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.04.2024
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 29.05.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20.07.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.04.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:CIC/CCITD/A/2024/631071 Page 1 of 5
"1. Is PAN number of flat owner compulsory for HRA exemption of any employee in case of rented flat?
2. What is the maximum rent limit for HRA exemption?
3. If any employee is living in their office area location but his family is living in another city and employee paying rent for their family much higher then in this case, can employee submit the HRA of their family in his company for HRA exemption?
4. Can anyone made the rent agreement of flat owner family if flat owner authorized him?"
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.05.2024. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent despite notice.
Respondent: Shri Swatantra Mohan, Income Tax Officer/APIO, appeared in person.
4. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 20.07.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service.
5. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the CPIO has filed detailed written submission dated 09.01.2026 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record, copy of the same was sent to the Appellant. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
CIC/CCITD/A/2024/631071 Page 2 of 5"In the impugned matter, Sh. M. Gupta filed an RTI application vide Registration No. INCTD/R/T/24/00443 dated 24.04.2024, wherein the following information were required:
1. Is PAN number of the flat owner compulsory for HRA exemption of any employee in case of rented flat?
2. What is the maximum rent limit for HRA exemption?
3. If any employee is living in their office area location but his family is living in another city and employee paying rent for their family much higher then in this case, can employee submit the HRA of their family in his company for HRA exemption?
4. Can anyone made the rent agreement of flat owner family if flat owner authorized him?
2. Your honour, it is pertinent to state that the applicant filed first appeal vide RTI Appeal Registration No. INCTD/A/E/24/00068 dated 29.05.2024 stating that no information was received yet. However, the First Appellate Authority passed its order dated 25.06.2024 against the First Appeal filed by Sh. M. Gupta. In Para 3 of the order, the First Appellate Authority stated that the information sought in the RTI application is available in Public Domain.
3. At the outset, the undersigned wishes to bring this to your kind notice that the CPIO passed the relevant order against the RTI Application dated 24.04.2024 vide F. No. DCIT(Hqrs.) (Coord.)/RTI Order/2024-25/1583 dated 26.04.2024 wherein it was duly conveyed that the information sought in the RTI application was available in public domain.
4. Your honour, it is submitted that, at a cursory glance, information sought by the appellant is in the nature of interpretative queries, seeking clarification and interpretation on the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Rules made thereunder, particularly relating to admissibility of House Rent Allowance (HRA). Kind attention is invited to section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005 wherein definition of 'information' has been included:
"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 CIC/CCITD/A/2024/631071 Page 3 of 5 relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;"
5. The queries raised at points 1 to 4 of the RTI application require interpretation of statutory provisions and application of law to notional/assumptive situations, which does not fall within the ambit of "information" under the RTI Act. It is germane to note that the relevant provisions relating to HRA exemption, including conditions and limits, are available in the Income-tax Act, 1961, Rule 2A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and related CBDT circulars/FAQs, which are duly & easily accessible in the public domain on the official website of the Income Tax Department.
6. Further, guidelines have been provided for public authorities in Para- 9 of DOPT OM vide No. 1/4/2008-IR dated 25.04.2008, which reads as under:
"9. Only such information is required to be supplied under the Act which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. It is not required under the Act to create information, or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions."
7. Also, it is worthwhile to note that CPIO/PIO is not expected to provide intangibles such as justifications, interpretations, explanations, inferences drawn, reasons etc. References are made to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 & Hon'ble CIC's decision in K.S. Prasad v. Income Tax Department (CIC/AT/A/2007/00471) in this regard."
Decision:
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, notes that the Respondent has filed detailed written submissions dated 09.01.2026, placing on record the factual as well as the legal position with respect to the RTI application. On perusal of the said submissions, the Commission is of the view that the reply furnished by the Respondent is appropriate and in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, as the information sought by the Appellant CIC/CCITD/A/2024/631071 Page 4 of 5 is largely interpretative in nature and the relevant statutory provisions are already available in the public domain.
7. It is further observed that the Appellant was not present during the hearing and that the hearing notice issued to the Appellant was returned undelivered with the postal remark in Hindi reading "Makan Khali."
8. In the interest of justice and to ensure that the Appellant is duly informed, the Commission directs the Respondent to provide a copy of the written submission dated 09.01.2026 along with all relevant enclosures to the Appellant, free of cost, within a week from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Sd/-
(S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Room No 356 C.R. BUILDING, IP Estate, New Delhi, Delhi - 110002 CIC/CCITD/A/2024/631071 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)