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 the 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 application 30.06.2017
CPIO’s response Not on Record
Date of the First Appeal 18.10.2017
First Appellate Authority’s response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 04.06.2018
O R D E R
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding his complaint dated 16.05.2017 and desired to initiate action against the same.
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/ order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Rajkumar;
Respondent: Mr. P. Bhogendro Singh, ITO;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that he had filed a TEP and that the status of the same was not being intimated to him. In its reply, the Respondent informed that consistent correspondence had been dealt with within the Department a copy of which had been endorsed to the Appellant as well. The said TEP had been categorized as category “C” and the orders received on 06.09.2017 and further action is being initiated as per extant guidelines. The case will be assessed as per ongoing investigation / enquiry. A written submission was presented to the Commission on 20.12.2019 a copy of which was hand delivered to the Appellant.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, 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 was made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), 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.”
Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. “….Under the RTI Act “information” is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, 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.”
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions,advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed.”
7. “….the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the “public authority” under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him.”
The Commission referred to the order dated 18/06/2013 (File No. CIC/RM/A/2012/000926 Sh. Ved Prakash Doda v/s ITO) wherein it was held as under:
“6. It has been the stand of the Commission that in respect of a tax evasion petition, once the investigation is completed, the appellant should be informed the broad results of the investigation, without disclosing any details. The appellant has a right to know as to whether the information provided by him was found to be true or false.”
While relying on the aforementioned decision of the Commission in the matter of Ved Prakash Doda, the 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 dated 29.07.2016 held as under:
“In the matter at hand investigation/assessment is in progress. The CPIO/ITO Ward 56(1) should disclose the broad outcome of the TEP to the appellant as soon as the assessment is completed.”
The aforementioned decision was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Mohd. Naeem Ahmed vs. Director of Income Tax and Ors, WP (C) 1112/2018 dated 27.03.2019. The relevant extracts of the order are mentioned hereunder:
“3. Mr. Bharat Bhushan Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, during his arguments stated that he would be satisfied if the petitioner is informed the ultimate outcome of the investigation / assessment. It goes without saying that in terms of the direction of the CIC, the CPIO / ITO of the Ward concerned is / are required to disclose the broad outcome of the TEP to the petitioner herein. There is no reason to disbelieve that they shall not disclose the same after the investigation / assessment is over.
4. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents assures the Court that the said procedure shall be followed in this case. Taking the statement on record, I am of the view no further orders are required to be passed in this
writ petition”
DECISION:
In the light of the facts available on record and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission instructs the Respondent to disclose the broad outcome of the investigation to the Appellant as soon as the investigation in the matter is completed.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (नबमल जुल्का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयुक्त)
Authenticated true copy
(अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत)
(K.L. Das) (के.एल.िास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ kl.das
दिनांक / Date: 24.12.2019