Central Information Commission
Dinesh vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 18 December, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal Nos. CIC/CCITD/A/2019/115626
CIC/CCITD/A/2019/115627
CIC/CCITD/A/2019/115629
CIC/CCITD/A/2019/115630
Dinesh ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, O/o. The Commissioner of ...प्रनतवािी /Respondent
Income Tax, New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
RTIs : 10-10-2018 &
FAs : 21-12-2018 SAs : 03-04-2019
08-10-2018
CPIO : Not on Record FAO : Not on Record Hearing : 04-12-2020
ORDER
1. Since the matter involves adjudication of identical legal issues, therefore, these 2nd appeals are being clubbed together and disposed of by a common single order.
2. The appellant filed application(s) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o. The Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi seeking following information:-
CIC/CCITD/A/2019/115626
1. "How many cottage industries of East Delhi/Trans Yamuna are under the tax net and pay income tax. Provide their complete details with address.
2. List indicating name & mobile numbers of all the Income Tax Inspectors/officers deployed in East Delhi/Trans Yamuna." CIC/CCITD/A/2019/115627
1. "How many sweets shop owners pay income tax. Provide details of their name and address.Page 1 of 5
2. List indicating name & mobile numbers of all the Income Tax Inspectors/officers deployed in East Delhi/Trans Yamuna." CIC/CCITD/A/2019/115629 "1. How many MBBS/BAMS doctors pay income tax based on their private practice? Provide their complete details with address.
2. List indicating name & mobile numbers of all the Income Tax Inspectors/officers deployed in East Delhi/Trans Yamuna." CIC/CCITD/A/2019/115630 "1. How many public schools under EDMC pay their taxes? Provide their complete details with address.
2. List indicating name & mobile numbers of all the Income Tax Inspectors/officers deployed in East Delhi/Trans Yamuna."
3. As the CPIO did not send the reply(s) within a period of 30 days, the appellant filed the first appeal(s) dated 21-12-2018 which were not disposed of by the first appellate authority. Thereafter, he filed the second appeal(s) u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
4. The appellant, Mr. Dinesh did not attend the hearing and also could not be contacted at the scheduled time of hearing despite efforts. Mr. Naresh, Additional Commissioner, Ms. Shivani Bansal, Jt. Commissioner, Mr. Ajay Kumar, Jt.
Commissioner and Mr. Atique Ahmad, Additional Commissioner participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
5. The respondent submitted that the queries raised by the appellant on point no. 1 of the referred RTI applications are in the form of questions and clarifications from the CPIO which are not covered u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. On point no. 2, they submitted that due to frequent transfers of Income Tax Inspectors/officers, no specific data is available in a compiled form indicating their names and mobile nos. with regard to deployment in East Delhi/Trans Yamuna region.
Decision:
6. Since the appellant is not present to attend the hearing, this Commission takes note of the documents annexed with the 2 nd appeal wherein he has expressed his displeasure on not providing the information.
7. This Commission observes that the queries raised by the appellant regarding details of cottage industries, sweets shop owners, MBBS/BAMS doctors and Page 2 of 5 public schools of EDMC which are under the tax net and as to whether they are paying their taxes requires interpretation and analysis of non-specific voluminous data which cannot be expected from the CPIO. The appellant has sought explanation from the CPIO which is in the nature of "fishing and roving" queries and would, if brought within the ambit of the term 'information' lead to a situation where the public authority's focus and energy would get diverted. Accordingly, it cannot be expected from the CPIO to satisfy the unending aspirations that the appellant may have in his mind. Therefore, this sort of vague and situational queries seeking clarifications from the CPIO are not covered within the definition of 'information' u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, the Commission refers to the definition of 'information' u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:-
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:-
"(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 ........"
In this context, a reference is also made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, 2011 (8) SCC 497, wherein it was held as under:-
35..... "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."Page 3 of 5
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) v. The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:-
"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; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
8. In light of the factual matrix of the instant 2nd appeal(s) and the aforesaid case-laws, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the CPIO is not obliged to provide any clarification to the appellant. Since names and mobile nos. of the Income Tax Inspectors/officers deployed in East Delhi/Trans Yamuna are not maintained in a consolidated form due to their frequent transfers, this information cannot be supplied to the appellant. It is not the obligation of the CPIO to create any fresh compilation if the information in the manner sought by the appellant is not maintained in their records. This legal principle is supported by the decision dated 07-01-2016 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in LPA 24/2015 & CM No. 965/2015 titled as The Registrar of Supreme Court of India v. Commodore Lokesh K Batra & Ors., wherein, it was held as under:-
"15. On a combined reading of Section 4(1)(a) and Section 2(i), it appears to us that the requirement is only to maintain the records Page 4 of 5 in a manner which facilitates the right to information under the Act. As already noticed above, "right to information" under Section 2(j) means only the right to information which is held by any public authority. We do not find any other provision under the Act under which a direction can be issued to the public authority to collate the information in the manner in which it is sought by the applicant."
9. However, the respondent has not uploaded their written submissions and the replies to the RTI applications, therefore, the CPIO is hereby issued a very strict warning to be more meticulous in future and not to contravene the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. If the replies are not already sent to the appellant, the CPIO is further directed to send copies of their replies to the appellant, within a period of 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order.
10. With the above observations, these appeals are disposed of.
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कु मार गुप्ता) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) दिनाांक / Date 04-12-2020 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानित सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमाग), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO O/o. The Commissioner of Income Tax RTI Cell, D-Block, IP Estate, ITO, New Delhi-110002
2. Dinesh Page 5 of 5