1
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama
Place, New Delhi110066
Telefax:01126180532 & 01126107254 websitecic.gov.in
Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2010/001893
Appellant : Sh. Raj Bihari Mathur,
Jaipur
Public Authority : O/o the Chief
Commissioner of IT,Jaipur
(Sh. Sanjay Nargas, ITO/CPIO
- through
Videoconferencing)
Date of Hearing : 23 May 2011
Date of Decision : 23 May 2011
Facts
:
1. Shri Raj Bihari Mathur submitted RTI application
dated 18 September 2009 before the CPIO, office of
the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur seeking
information regarding action taken on the TEP dated 2
July 2009 submitted by him.
2. Vide CPIO order dated 5 October 2009, disclosure
of information was denied under the provisions of
section 8 (1) (j) of the Act.
Appellant preferred appeal dated 26 October 2009
before the first appellate authority.
3. FAA order dated 18 November 2009 was issued
after hearing the appellant personally. Through this
order the CPIO was directed to provide information
regarding action taken on the appellant’s complaint
dated to July 2009.
4. Not being satisfied, Appellant preferred second
appeal before the Commission. Matter was heard today
Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2010/001893
2
through videoconferencing as both parties were
present at Jaipur. Respondent stated that the TEP was
addressed to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax.
There was difficulty in providing information to the
appellant as there were 14 Commissioners of Income
Tax and 40 CPIOs in Jaipur. The TEP was forwarded by
the CPIO, office of the Chief Commissioner of Income
Tax to the CPIO, C IT- I Jaipur who in turn forwarded
it to additional CIT RangeI. The TEP was finally
forwarded to the jurisdictional assessing officer who
was required to conduct the enquiry on the basis of
the TEP. Appellant stated that he had so far not
received any information from the jurisdictional
assessing officer. Respondent stated that the enquiry
was yet not complete and therefore the information
could not be furnished to the appellant.
Decision notice
5. After hearing both parties the Commission
directs that after the completion of the enquiry, the
jurisdictional assessing officer namely, Income Tax
Officer Ward-1 (3), Jaipur will provide information
to the appellant restricted to whether the
information provided by him was found to be
true/partly true/false.
6. The ITO, Ward – 1 (3), Jaipur, – who is the
holder of information is asked to show cause why
action should not be taken to impose penalty on him
for not having provided information to the appellant
after he received the RTI application, within the
timeframe stipulated under the RTI Act. The CPIO is
provided opportunity of personal hearing before
Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2010/001893
3
imposition of penalty and he is directed to appear
before the Commission at New Delhi on 28.7.2011 at
11.30 AM.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
Information Commissioner (DS)
Authenticated true copy:
(T. K. Mohapatra)
Under Secretary & Dy. Registrar
Copy to:
1. Sh. Raj Bihari Mathur
126, Prithviraj Nagar
Maharani Farm, Durgapur,
Jaipur302018
2. The CPIO
O/o the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
Central Revenue Building
B.D. Road, Jaipur
3. The Appellate Authority
O/o the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
Central Revenue Building
B.D. Road, Jaipur
4. The Income Tax Officer
Ward1(3), O/o the Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax, Central Revenue Building
B.D. Road, Jaipur
Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2010/001893