Central Information Commission
Sibnath Ghosh vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 27 February, 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/CBODT/A/2022/116011
Sibnath Ghosh ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Income Tax Officer,
Ward-29(1), Kolkata, RTI Cell,
Aayakar Bhawan, Dakshin, 2,
Gariahat Road (South),
Kolkata-700031, West Bengal. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15/02/2023
Date of Decision : 15/02/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on :19/03/2021
CPIO replied on :NIL
First appeal filed on :21/06/2021
First Appellate Authority's order :NIL
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated :24/01/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.03.2021 with the CPIO, DCIT HQ(Admin.), Kolkata seeking the following information:
"Pan No. AAXPU0281C of Sandeep Upadhyay Pan No. A88PU1151G of Jayesh V Upadhyay 1
a) Kindly supply me whether above two pan card holder flied Income tax return in the FY- 2015-2016.
b) If they had filed Income tax return in the FY-2015-2016 whether they showed a flat purchased for Rs. 18,51,000 by paying in cash on 23.07.2015.
c) If they had shown a flat purchased paying in cash on 23.07.2015 In their return filed fa FY: - 2015-2016. Kindly supply me what is their source."
The CPIO, PCIT, West Bengal & Sikkim transferred the RTI Application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to O/o PCIT-9, Kolkata on 24.03.2021. Subsequently, the PCIT-9, Kolkata transferred the RTI Application to the ITO, Ward 29(1), Kolkata on 20.04.2021.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.06.2022 with PCIT, West Bengal & Sikkim and the same was transferred to the PCIT-9, Kolkata on 23.07.2021.
FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: S N Hira, ITO, Ward 29(1) & CPIO present through video conference.
The Appellant stated that he has not received the desired information till date.
The CPIO submitted that the information sought for by the Appellant relates to a third party. Upon a query from the Commission regarding any reply provided to the Appellant after the transfer of the RTI Application to the concerned ward, the CPIO was unavailable to tender any material submission.
Decision:2
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the information sought for by the Appellant in the RTI Application is in the form of seeking answers to speculative queries about the personal information of a third party. In other words, the RTI Application neither conforms to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and even if the answers to his question were available in material form, disclosure of the same would be exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(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;.." In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it washeld as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly as regards Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the attention of the Appellant is further drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 3 Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information"
envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..." Emphasis Supplied Having observed as above, no relief is warranted in the matter.
However, the Commission takes grave exception to the fact that prima-facie no reply was provided to the instant RTI Application by the Respondent office which is a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. The CPIO is hereby directed to send his detailed written explanation to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of the RTI Act. The said written explanation of the CPIO shall reach the Commission along with supporting documents, if any, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5