CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2009/001174
Appellant : Shri Dinesh Chand Jain
Public Authority : Income Tax Department, Delhi
(through Advocate P. Roy Choudhary & Shri
Virender Singh Dhanda, ITO (HQ)
(Exemption)
Date of Hearing : 18.2.2010
Date of Decision : 18.2.2010
FACTS
:
The matter is called for hearing today dated 18.2.2010. Appellant
not present. Income Tax Department is represented by the officers named
above. It is noticed that vide RTI application dated 29.6.2009, the
appellant has sought information on 05 paras. A comprehensive para-wise
reply was sent to him by the CPIO. However, in the first appeal, he had
taken only the following 02 grounds :-
“(i) The list of 12A/80G cases granted to the societies were not
furnished to me? Why it has not been given? Please give reason
why it has not been given and under what law the list cannot be
given. Please give complete details.
(ii) Why details of movable and immovable properties have not been
given. Under which law, the movable and immovable property
details of officers cannot be given? Please give complete details?”
2. This was disposed of by the FAA vide order dated 28.8.2009.
3. The present appeal is directed against the orders of CPIO/AA.
4. During the hearing, it is noticed that the issue raised in para (i)
extracted above is going to be heard by a Full Bench of this Commission in
File No 000190, 000436 & 000636 on 11.3.2010 at 1600 hrs. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that it would be expedient to issue notice to the
appellant to appear before the Commission on the said date to convass his
case. Hence, no order need be passed on this issue. As regards para (ii)
extracted above, the AA had refused to disclose information in terms of
section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Adv Roy Choudhary submits that the
appellant has asked for immovable and movable properties of the entire
officer cadre and staff posted in the O/o DIT (Exemptions). This
information is ‘personal’ in nature and can not be disclosed. According to
him personal information can be disclosed only if the Commission is
satisfied that the larger public interest justifies disclosure of thereof. He
would plead that the appellant has not established any such larger public
interest before the FAA. Nor has he appeared before this Commission to
convass his case.
5. I am inclined to agree with the submission of Advocate Roy
Choudhary in regard to para 02. Hence, I do not find any merit in the
appeal.
DECISION
6. In view of the above, the following decision is recorded :-
(i) notice may be issued to the appellant to appear before the
Commission on 11.3.2010 at 1600 hrs to convass his case in respect
of para (i) extracted above.
(ii) The appeal is dismissed in respect of para (ii) extracted above.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be
supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under
the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.L. Das)
Assistant Registrar
Address of parties :-
1. Shri Virender Singh Dhanda
ITO (HQ) (Exemption),
Income Tax Department,
Aayakar Bhawan, Laxmi Nagar,
Distt. Centre, Delhi.
2. Shri Dinesh Chand Jain
Qtr. No. 2, Welcome Double Storey,
Phase-III, Delhi-110053