Loading...

Mr.Harbans Singh vs Cbdt on 2 December, 2010

Central Information Commission
Mr.Harbans Singh vs Cbdt on 2 December, 2010
                      Central Information Commission
 Room No.296, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New 
                                  Delhi­110066
              Telefax:011­26180532 & 011­26107254 website­cic.gov.in
                     Appeal  : No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000864


Appellant /Complainant           :       Shri Harbans Singh, Kapurthala 

Public Authority                 :       Office of the Chief Commissioner of 
                                         Income Tax, Jalandhar/Ludhiana
                                         (Sh. Udesh Dohia, CPIO and Smt. 
Prgna
                                         Paraminda, AA - through video 
                                         conferencing)  
Date of Hearing                  :        2/12/2010
Date of Decision                 :        2/12/2010 

Facts

:­ 
 

1. The  applicant  preferred  RTI  application  dated  1  November 2009 
before Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, north­west region, Chandigarh 
seeking information regarding action taken on his letters of 18 December 
2007 and 31 March 2009 and other related information through 12 points – 
enclosed herewith as Annexure A.

2. The   CC   I   T,   Chandigarh   forwarded   the   same   to   the   CC   I   T, 
Ludhiana under section 6 (3) of the Act who further transferred the RTI 
application  to   the   Commissioner  of  Income  Tax  –   II,   Jalandhar  on  the 
grounds that they were the holders of information.

3. Vide order dated 14 December 2009 the Commissioner of Income 
Tax   provided   point   wise   information   to   the   appellant   against   which 
appellant preferred appeal dated 9 February 2010 before first appellate 
authority – CC IT, Ludhiana.

4. The CCIT, Ludhiana vide his order of 25 February 2010 informed 
the appellant that the CIT is the appellate authority for any order passed by 
the   officer   under   his   administrate   control   as   per   instructions   dated   7 
September   2007   passed   by   the   office   of   the   Chief   Commissioner   of 
Income Tax, Ludhiana and that any appeal on the appellate order passed 
by   the   Commissioner   of   Income   Tax   straightaway   lies   to   Central 
Information   Commission   and   the   CCIT   does   not   act   as   an   appellate 
authority on such order.

5. Consequently,   appellant   preferred   second   appeal   before   the 
Commission.   The   matter   was   heard   today   through   videoconferencing. 
Both parties were present as above and made submissions.

6. Appellant stated that the information provided to him by the CIT was 
vague and incomplete.

7. Commission notes the averments of the appellant that the CPIO, 
Jalandhar – II has in fact not responded to his RTI application and that it is 
the   first  appellate  authority  namely,  the   Commissioner  Of   Income  Tax, 
Jalandhar   –   II   who   has   provided   information   which   is   not   as   per   the 
provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

Decision

8. At the outset Commission take serious note of the fact that the first 
appellate authority and not CPIO has provided information in response to 
the RTI application. This is not in conformity with the provisions of section 
7 (1) of the Act. First appellate authority is warned to educate himself on 
the provisions of the Act and to implement the same without any dilution.

9. While accepting the averments and arguments of the respondent 
furnished in a written submission that personal information of a citizen is to 
be protected, Commission reminds the respondent that ” mere existence 
of   an   investigation   process   cannot   be   a   ground   for   refusal   of   the 
information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory 
reasons  as   to   why   the   release   of   such   information   would   hamper  the 
investigation process.” (WP (C) no. 3114/2007 in the case of Bharat Singh 
versus   CIC   and   others   –   S   Ravindra   Bhat   J   3   December   2007). 
Respondent   has   not   provided   any   reasons   while   denying   information 
regarding status of the ongoing enquiry and the conclusions there of.

10. Accordingly it is directed that CPIO will provide information to the 
appellant as follows:

Points 1 and 2: provide status of the ongoing enquiry and broad 
conclusions arrived at.

Points 3, 8 and 9: no information has been sought by the appellant
Points 4, 5, 6, 7 – Information to be provided to Appellant as   it 
concerns and has bearing on the revenues of the State.

11. In providing information as sought under  Points 1 and 2 of the RTI 
application, CPIO will do so as per the provisions of section 10 the RTI Act 
wherever required.

12. Information   to   be   provided   within   three   weeks   of   receipt   of   the 
order.  

  

(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
Information Commissioner (DS)
Authenticated true copy:

(T. K. Mohapatra)
Under Secretary & Dy. Registrar
Tel No. 011­26105027

Copy to:­

1. Shri Harbans Singh
S/o Sh. S.Amar Singh, 
VPO Mansoorwal Dona
Tehsil & Distt­ Kapurthala

2. The CPIO
O/o the Commissioner of Income Tax
Jalandhar­11, 
Jalandhar

3. The Appellate Authority
O/o the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Aayakar Bhawan,
Rishi Nagar, Ludbhiana.   

 

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information