dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx
Central Information Commission
Case No. CIC/AT/C/2008/00448
Dated: 24.12.2009
Complainant: Ms Anumeha
Respondents: Central Board of Direct Taxes
ORDER
This is the complaint filed by Ms. Anumeha, under section 18(1)(f) of the RTI Act, against Central Board
of Direct Taxes stating that the CPIO had not complied with the order dated 29.4.2008 of the Commission in
Case No. CIC/AT/A/2007/01029 & 1263 to 1270.
2. In her complaint Ms. Anumeha alleged that despite Commission’s directions, information was denied to
her by CPIO Ms. Renu Jauhri. She therefore, requested (i) to initiate an inquiry into the matter u/s 18(1)(f) of RTI
Act; (ii) summon the respondents to produce the records; and (iii) direct respondents to furnish I.T. Return of
Janta Dal(Secular), Indian National Lok Dal and National Conference for the period 2002-03 to 2006-07.
3. Commission invited the comments of the respondents in the matter. In his reply, CPIO Ms. Renu Jauhri,
Director clarified that earlier the RTI-application dt. 28.2.2007 of the complainant was forwarded to the
jurisdictional Chief Commissioners of Income Tax for necessary action as the CBDT was not the custodian of
I.T. Returns of the political parties. The appeal filed by the complainant was also forwarded to the concerned
Appellate Authorities of Chief Commissioners of Income Tax. Thus, the above referred decision of the
Commission, was to be complied with by the concerned CPIOs / AAs and the complainant was very much aware
of that fact, since all the earlier correspondence were also endorsed to her. However, action was taken by the
TRA-II Division and letters in this regard were issued by Shri Surender Pal, US & CPIO, CBDT (As she was not
the CPIO at that time) to the concerned Chief Commissioners of Income Tax on 22.7.2008. Therefore, the
complaint filed in the instant case against her was without any basis and deserved to be dismissed.
4. It has been observed by the Commission that the said orders were to be complied with by the holders-of-
the-information (and not by the CPIO / AA of the CBDT, who do not have such information) and copies of the
orders were also endorsed to them. Moreover, the letter written by the complainant for compliance of
Commission’s order dated 29.4.2008 was also forwarded by CPIO, CBDT to the concerned public authorities,
with the endorsements to the complainant.
5. Thus, there is no merit in the complaint against the CPIO/AA of CBDT. The complaint is therefore,
dismissed.
Sd/-
(D.C. Singh)
Deputy Registrar