ENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000250/SG/12638
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000250/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant: : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta
102 SFS Flats DDA, C & B
Block Shalimar Bagh, Outer Ring Road,
New Delhi-110088.
Respondent: : Mr. R. S. Syal
PIO & Member ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Old Central Govt. Offices Bldg.,
101, Maharshi Kane Marg,
Mumbai - 400020
RTI application: 30/06 /2010
PIO reply: 04/08/2010
First appeal 09/08/2010
FAA order 03/09/2010
Second appeal 07/10/2010
Information sought:
1. Kindly provide the list of RTI Applications requesting ITAT judicial case/Inspection/ copies and
allowed BY ITAT (From 1/1/2006 to 1/7/2010).
2. Kindly provide the list of RTI Applications requesting ITAT judicial case/Inspection/ copies and
allowed BY ITAT (From 1/1/2006 to 1/7/2010).
3. With reference to following grievance of Public & as well Bar association, extract of meeting held
on 18th January 2008 with the members of the ITAT Bar Association, Delhi, the Hon’ble
President has addressed a number of important issues concerning the functioning of the Tribunal.
Complete text is available itatonline.org. Kindly provide information relating to
complaints/grievances of public as well as bar association . (From 1/1/2006 to 1/7/2010).
PIO’s reply:
With reference to your application dated 30.06.2010, received in this office on 06.07.20 10, under the
Right to Information Act-2005, I am directed to inform you that, the queries raised by you are outside the
purview of the Right to Information Act; 2005 in view of para 6.3 of the recent decision dated 22.06.2010
of the Hon’ble Central Information Commission, New Delhi in the case of Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs.
Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) & Income Tax Department in Appeal No.CIC/LS/A/2010/000378
& 379. Further, no complaints, grievances have been filed before the Tribunal, as regards variations in
Tribunal orders.
Grounds for First appeal:
Rejection not based on law.
FAA order:
It is necessary in this context to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Central Information Commission in its
Order dated 22-6-2010 (Appeal No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000378 & 379) wherein identical information was
sought for by the appellant and the Hon’ble CIC observed that seeking such information without any
justification would amount to misusing the provisions of RTI Act since it is only to create unnecessary
proceedings before the authorities who are expected to do important Government work. In a detailed
Order passed by the CIC, Order of the CPIO refraining from providing information of third party to
stranger was held to be justified having regard to the circumstances of the case. Facts and circumstances
in the instant case being identical, on the same issue appellant cannot seek information again by
approaching the appellate authority despite an Order by the Central Information Commission rejecting
such a request. At any rate, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court referred to by the appellant is
distinguishable on facts and cannot be extended to apply to the instant case.
Grounds for Second appeal:
Denial of information not as per law.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta;
Respondent : Mr. R. S. Syal, PIO & Member ITAT on video conference from NIC-Mumbai Studio;
The PIO has denied information on query-1 & 2 and has pointed out that the same information has
been sought by the Appellant in an RTI application dated 23/11/2009. This information had been denied
by the First Appellate Authority and the Information Commission. The PIO claims that in that matter the
information had been denied by the PIO claiming exemption, whereas the Appellant claims that the PIO
had not refused to give information based on any exemption and that he had not given the information but
sought more time to provide the information. However, the Appellant admits that the information being
sought in the RTI application in the instant appeal is part of the information which had been sought earlier
by him in his application on 23/11/2009. Since the Commission has dealt with the information sought in
the earlier RTI application and come to a conclusion that it is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act
this bench cannot given any contrary ruling on the same matter. Once a particular matter has been settled
by the Information Commission no other bench can order the same information to be provided.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The single member bench of the Information Commission has decided that the
information is exempt under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act and this bench cannot give a
contrary ruling on the same information.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
01 June 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (JK)