CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, C-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Website: cic.gov.in
Complaint No.:-CIC/BS/C/2016/000176-BJ
Complainant : Ms. Tulika Saxena
9, Dhruv Lok Raghuraj Nagar
Near Sec-8, Indra Nagar, Lucknow-226016
Respondent : CPIO
Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, O/o. Asstt.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-66(1),
Room No. 208, 2nd Floor, Block-B, Dr. S P
Mukherjee, Civic Centre, JLN Marg, Minto
Road, New Delhi-110002
Date of Hearing : 26.04.2017
Date of Decision : 26.04.2017
Date of filing of RTI applications 02.03.2016
CPIO’s response 10.03.2016
Date of filing the First Complaint Not on Record
First Appellate Authority’s response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of complaint by the Commission 30.03.2016
O R D E R
FACTS:
The Complainant vide her RTI application sought information regarding income and income tax details of her husband Mr. Gaurav Saxena for FY 2009-2010 to 2014-2015 etc.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 10.03.2016 issued a notice to Mr. Gaurav Saxena seeking his consent for the disclosure of information. No further action taken report is available on record. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Absent;
Respondent: Absent;
Both the parties remained absent during the hearing, despite prior intimation. From the contents of the RTI application it is evident that the Complainant had sought information regarding the income and the Income Tax details in respect of her husband Mr. Gaurav Saxena for FY 2009-2010 to 2014-2015. It was alleged that PIO had not followed the CIC decision no. RM/A/2012/000038/LS dated 03.06.2013 wherein it was decided that the wife cannot be treated as Third Party in the strict sense of the term so long as the marriage subsists. It was also submitted that she had suffered domestic violence and a suit was pending adjudication in Court of ACJM-Vth at Ghaziabad. From the records it was observed that barring issuing a letter to her husband Mr. Gaurav Saxena by the Respondent seeking his consent for disclosure of the information, no further action had been initiated.
The Respondent was not present to explain the factual position in the matter. The Commission noted the complaint filed by the Complainant before the Commission wherein the complainant did not press for penal action against the respondent under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 but desired to seek the information.
DECISION
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the information available on record, it is evident that no reply had been furnished to the Complainant in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 which is a grave violation of the provisions of the Act. The Commission, instructs the CPIO to showcause why action should not be taken under the provisions of the Act for this misconduct and negligence. The Commission therefore, directs the respondent to:
1- provide a suitable response to the Complainant within a period of 10 days in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005;
2- explain why penal action should not be taken as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, within 15 days; from the date of receipt of this order.
The Complaint stands disposed with the above direction.
(Bimal Julka)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das)
Deputy Registrar