Central Information Commission
Mrrameshwar Bhadada vs Cbdt on 19 July, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/CC/A/2015/003218/BS/10847
19 July 2016
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Rameshwar Bhadada,
R/o - D 74, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi - 110016
Respondent : CPIO / ITO - Ward 70(3),
Department of Income Tax,
O/o the ITO - Ward 70(3),
Room No - 308, Civic Center,
Minto Road, New Delhi - 110002.
ITO (HQRS-PERSONNEL),
Income Tax Department
O/o PCCIT,
RTI, ROOM NO.375A,
CENTRAL REVENUES BUILDING,
I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110 002
RTI application filed on : 30/01/2015
PIO replied on : 02/03/2015
First appeal filed on : 09/03/2015
First Appellate Authority order : 15/04/2015
Second Appeal dated : 21/04/2015
Information sought:
1. Provide a clarification regarding tax treatment of amount received/likely to receive which is still disputed and under consideration of court vide letter dated 05/11/2014 addressed to CIT-XVI, New Delhi (delivered at counter on 12/11/14). Whether a reply is given with a copy of reply sent.
2. Provide designation of officer in the department who can provide clarification/guidance regarding tax implication/ tax treatment on any receipt or income, in case of doubt.
3. Give name and address of 1st Appellate Authority and 2nd Appellate Authority Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Harish Bhadada appellant's representative Respondent: Mr. Niraj Kumar Sinha CPIO's representative Page 1 of 2 The applicant's representative stated that he wants clarification from the department on tax treatment for rent which is being received but is disputed in court. The CPIO's representative stated that applicant's attention has already been drawn to Section 25A, 25AA and 25B of the Income Tax Act which are applicable for rent and further clarification cannot be provided as it does not constitute "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The applicant's representative clarified that the said Sections are applicable in situation where arrears of undisputed rent are received and not on the issue raised by him. The CPIO's representative stated that he has nothing to add in the matter.
Decision notice:
It is clarified that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions.
The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 2 of 2