के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi – 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CCITD/A/2018/135175-BJ
Mr. Rajkumar…. अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(3) Office of a ITO, Ward – 2(3)
New C.G.O Complex, B – Block, NH-IV, Faridabad – 121001 …प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23.12.2019
Date of Decision : 24.12.2019
Date of RTI focus 30.06.2017
CPIO’s response Not on Record
Date of a First Appeal 18.10.2017
First Appellate Authority’s response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by a Commission 04.06.2018
O R D E R
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI focus sought information per his censure antiquated 16.05.2017 and preferred to trigger movement opposite a same.
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from a CPIO, a Appellant approached a FAA. The respond of a CPIO/ sequence of a FAA, if any, is not on a record of a Commission.
HEARING:
Facts rising during a hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Rajkumar;
Respondent: Mr. P. Bhogendro Singh, ITO;
The Appellant reiterated a essence of a RTI focus and settled that he had filed a TEP and that a standing of a same was not being intimated to him. In a reply, a Respondent sensitive that unchanging association had been dealt with within a Department a duplicate of that had been permitted to a Appellant as well. The pronounced TEP had been categorized as difficulty “C” and a orders perceived on 06.09.2017 and serve movement is being instituted as per working guidelines. The box will be assessed as per ongoing review / enquiry. A created acquiescence was presented to a Commission on 20.12.2019 a duplicate of that was palm delivered to a Appellant.
The Commission referred to a clarification of information u/s 2(f) of a RTI Act, 2005 that is reproduced below:
“information” means any element in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, information element hold in any electronic form and information relating to any private physique that can be accessed by a open management underneath any other law for a time being in force.”
Furthermore, a anxiety can also be done to a applicable remove of Section 2 (j) of a RTI Act, 2005 that reads as under:
“(j) right to information” means a right to information permitted underneath this Act that is hold by or underneath a control of any open management and includes ……..”
In this context a anxiety was done to a Hon’ble Supreme Court preference in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was hold as under:
35….. “It is also not compulsory to yield ‘advice’ or ‘opinion’ to an applicant, nor compulsory to obtain and allow any ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ to an applicant. The anxiety to ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ in a clarification of ‘information’ in territory 2(f) of a Act, usually refers to such element permitted in a annals of a open authority. Many open authorities have, as a open propinquity exercise, yield advice, superintendence and opinion to a citizens. But that is quite intentional and should not be confused with any requirement underneath a RTI Act.”
Furthermore, a Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on Jan 4, 2010) had hold as under:
6. “….Under a RTI Act “information” is tangible underneath Section 2(f) that provides:
“information” means any element in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report,
papers, samples, models, information element hold in any electronic form and information relating to any private physique that can be accessed by a open management underneath any other
law for a time being in force.”
This clarification shows that an applicant underneath Section 6 of a RTI Act can get any information that is already in existence and permitted to a open management underneath law. Of course, underneath a RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get duplicate of a opinions,advices, circulars, orders, etc., though he can't ask for any information as to because such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed.”
7. “….the Public Information Officer is not ostensible to have any element that is not before him; or any information he could have performed underneath law. Under Section 6 of a RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get usually such information that can be accessed by a “public authority” underneath any other law for a time being in force. The answers sought by a postulant in a focus could not have been with a open management nor could he have had entrance to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not thankful to give any reasons as to because he had taken such a preference in a matter that was before him.”
The Commission referred to a sequence antiquated 18/06/2013 (File No. CIC/RM/A/2012/000926 Sh. Ved Prakash Doda v/s ITO) wherein it was hold as under:
“6. It has been a mount of a Commission that in honour of a taxation semblance petition, once a review is completed, a appellant should be sensitive a extended formula of a investigation, but disclosing any details. The appellant has a right to know as to either a information supposing by him was found to be loyal or false.”
While relying on a aforementioned preference of a Commission in a matter of Ved Prakash Doda, a Commission in Mohd Naeem Ahmed vs. CPIO, ITO, CRU, New Delhi and CPIO, ITO, Ward 56 (1), New Delhi in CIC/CC/A/2015/004382/BS/10949 antiquated 29.07.2016 hold as under:
“In a matter during palm investigation/assessment is in progress. The CPIO/ITO Ward 56(1) should divulge a extended outcome of a TEP to a appellant as shortly as a comment is completed.”
The aforementioned preference was inspected by a Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in a matter of Mohd. Naeem Ahmed vs. Director of Income Tax and Ors, WP (C) 1112/2018 antiquated 27.03.2019. The applicable extracts of a sequence are mentioned hereunder:
“3. Mr. Bharat Bhushan Bhatia, schooled warn appearing for a petitioner, during his arguments settled that he would be confident if a postulant is sensitive a ultimate outcome of a review / assessment. It goes but observant that in terms of a instruction of a CIC, a CPIO / ITO of a Ward endangered is / are compulsory to divulge a extended outcome of a TEP to a postulant herein. There is no reason to mistrust that they shall not divulge a same after a review / comment is over.
4. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, schooled Senior Standing Counsel appearing for a respondents assures a Court that a pronounced procession shall be followed in this case. Taking a matter on record, we am of a perspective no serve orders are compulsory to be inspected in this
writ petition”
DECISION:
In a light of a contribution permitted on record and a submissions done by both a parties, a Commission instructs a Respondent to divulge a extended outcome of a review to a Appellant as shortly as a review in a matter is completed.
The Appeal stands likely accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (नबमल जुल्का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयुक्त)
Authenticated loyal copy
(अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत)
(K.L. Das) (के.एल.िास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ kl.das
दिनांक / Date: 24.12.2019
