Central Information Commission
Room No.296, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama
Place, New Delhi110066
Telefax:01126180532 & 01126107254 websitecic.gov.in
Complaint/ Appeal : No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000561
Appellant /Complainant : Shri Rohit Bhardwar,
Jalandhar
(Through video conferencing)
Public Authority : Office of The
DGIT(Vigilance), NewDelhi
(Sh. Adarsh Kumar Modi, Addl.
DIT(Vig.)/
CPIO and Sh. Rakesh Gupta,
Addl. DIG(Vig),
DPII)
Date of Hearing : 6/10/2010
Date of Decision : 6/10/2010
Facts
:
1. The applicant Shri Rohit Bhardwar sought
information from the CPIO, Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance vide his RTI application of
16.9.2009 – enclosed herewith as AnnexureA.
2. This RTI application was forwarded to the CPIO,
Office of DGIT(V) who vide his order of 30.10.2009
provided information which failed to satisfy the
applicant who then preferred appeal before the FAA.
3. The matter was disposed of vide FAAO of
23.12.2009.
4. The above orders left the applicant dissatisfied
and aggrieved who then preferred second appeal before
the Commission.
5. The matter was heard today. Appellant was present
and heard through video conferencing. Respondents were
present in person as above.
6. After hearing arguments by both parties in
details, the appellant agreed to exclude Points 4 & 6
from his RTI application but pressed for information
as per points 1 to 3 & 5 of his RTI application.
7. Respondent stated that they had 200
Administrative Commissioners controlling about 3000
Assessing Officers who each passed about 100 orders per
annum and therefore by rough calculation about 24 lakhs
orders had been passed in the period for which the
applicant sought information (8 years), therefore, it
is voluminous task to provide the requested
information.
8. Appellant stated that not more than 8 to 10 cases
under each region would have been reconsidered under
section 263 of the Income Tax Act and therefore, the
task was not as huge as it was made out to be.
9. The period for which information was sought is
1.8.2001 to 16.9.2009.
Decision
10. It is noted that the RTI application was
forwarded by CIG(IT&CT) to the Director, ITJ vide
their letter of 9.11.2009l as he was the holder of
information. However, it appears that no action was
taken by them to respond to the appellant. Action to
be taken by the respondents is as follows :
(a) Director, IT(J) is directed to provide his
email address to the appellant whose
telephone No. is 9915280405 within one week
of the receipt of the order.
(b) The appellant will provide soft copy of his
RTI application (excluding Points 4 & 6) of
the original RTI application to Director,
IT(J) at his email address along with
prescribed fee of Rs. 10/ in respect of all
200 CPIOs i.e., 200 x Rs.10/ = Rs.2,000/.
(c) On receiving the above Director, IT(J) will
within 5 working days electronically
transfer questions 1 & 2 to the CPIOs in the
Offices of the Administrative Commissioners
(CITs) across the country with directions to
provide information to the appellant
directly within 4 weeks of receipt of the
RTI application since prescribed fee has
already been deposited at Headquarters.
(d) CPIO and Addl. DIG(V) is directed to provide
information pertaining to points 3 & 5 of
the original RTI application to the
appellant within one week of receipt of the
order.
11. Notice is also given to Director, IT(J) to show
cause why penalty should not be imposed on him for
not having responded to the appellant within the time
frame prescribed under the RTI Act, opportunity of
personal hearing is provided to him on 10.11.2010 at
11.00 AM and he is directed to be present along with
all necessary documents.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
Information Commissioner (DS)
Authenticated true copy:
(Tarun Kumar)
Jt. Secretary & Addl. Registrar
Copy to:
1. Shri Rohit Bhardwar
34/1, Hamamdasspura
Sewak Ram Hospital
Kapurthala Road, Jallandhar (PB)
2. Shri Adarsh Kumar Modi
Addl. DIT(V), O/O DGIT(Vig.)
Deen Dalyal Upadhyay Marg,
New Delhi – 110002.
3. The Appellate Authority
O/O DGIT(Vig.)
Deen Dalyal Upadhyay Marg,
New Delhi – 110002.