CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00330
Dated, the 16th July, 2008.
Appellant : Shri R.I. Patel
Respondents : Income Tax Department
This matter came up for hearing on 10.07.2008 pursuant to Commission’s
hearing notice dated 15.05.2008. Appellant was absent, while the respondents
were represented by the CPIO, Shri Vinod Tanwani, Deputy Commissioner of
Income Tax (Headquarters).
2. Through his RTI-application dated 12.10.2007, the appellant had raised
seven queries, which read as follows:-
“1. Names of Addl. C.I.T.’s / Jt. C.I.T.’s in Gujarat charge who have /
had been posted as Sr.A.R. or Jr.A.R. and who are not posted as
Sr.A.R. or Jr.A.R. on regular basis during their career and period
thereof.
2. Name of Addl. / Jt. C.I.T. who had been posted as Sr.A.R. and / or
Jr. A.R. on regular basis during their career more than once and
period thereof.
2.1 Whether any of them were posted on such post on their request. If
so, details thereof.
3. Names of Addl. / Jt.C.I.T.’s who had not been posted as Sr.A.R. or
Jr.A.R. on regular basis during their career.
4. Particulars as to officers whose order of posting as regular Sr.A.R.
or Jr.A.R. have been cancelled or modified since 1.4.1998 and
reasons for modification or cancellation, as the case may be, along
with copy of their representation, if any.
5. As per cadre restructuring plan as well as A.R.’s manual each
division bench of the I.T.A.T. requires to be represented by 3 D.R.s
(as per A.R.’s manual 1 Sr.A.R., 2 J.R. and as per cadre
restructuring plan 1 CIT (DR) and 2 Sr.A.R.). How many D.R.s
have been posted for each Bench at present. If each Bench is not
represented by 3 D.R.s, why sufficient numbers of D.R.s are not
posted so as to improve quality of representations in view of time
available for preparation of cases vis a vis no. of cases on cause
list. What immediate actions department wants to take to reduce
burden on existing D.R.s in accordance with norms.
Page 1 of 3
6. Name of officers who have made representations against posting as
Sr.A.R. in recent annual general order of posting dated 7th June
2007 (order No.13 of 2007-08) and reasons for rejection or
acceptance of representation in case of each of such officer and
copy of representations made by each officer. If without any
representations order as Sr.A.R. is cancelled, reasons for suo motu
cancellation.
7. Whether present Sr.A.R. working at D.R. Office at ITAT have been
provided necessary facility for proper functioning i.e. services of
stenographers, latest commentaries of Income Tax Act, I.T.R.
Journals, CTR, Library facility, STD telephone facility, fax facility,
etc. If so, how many Sr.A.R. provided and to what extent. If not,
why not provided?”
3. Appellant received a response from the CPIO, dated 31.10.2007 and
later-on from the Appellate Authority on 06.12.2007.
4. Although the respondents provided some information to the appellant
their general line was that the information requested by him was voluminous,
tabulating which would unnecessarily divert resources of the public authority.
Therefore, they claimed that this variety of information attracted Section 7(9) of
the RTI Act and hence could not be supplied to the appellant.
Item Nos.1 to 3:
As regards information at items 1 to 3 of the queries, the respondents have
already informed the appellant that this information was freely available on the
department’s website where the appellant can easily access them.
Decision:
As this information has already been brought into the public domain,
there is no obligation cast on the respondents to disclose it.
Item No.4:
As regards item no.4, the respondents pointed out that this item related to
over 96 officers and since the appellant wanted information to be collected for
the period 1998 till today, it was bound to be a voluminous exercise.
The appellant considers that the exercise was not so large and detailed as
the respondents were making it out to be.
Page 2 of 3
Decision:
It is directed the CPIO may provide to the appellant information for
at least two latest years, if not for all the years since 1998. He can charge to the
appellant such fee and further-fee as may be determined given the volume of the
information transmitted. This will be done within three weeks of the receipt of
this order.
Item No.5:
The only information, which in item 5, can be disclosed to the appellant is
the number of D.R.s posted for each Bench of ITAT at present.
Decision:
Respondents may disclose this information to the appellant within three
weeks from the date of the receipt of this order. No other information in this
item of query need be disclosed as it is mostly in the nature of seeking the
respondents’ explanations, which they are not obliged to give under Section 2(f)
of the RTI Act.
Item No.6:
Respondents are directed to disclose within 3 weeks from the date of the
receipt of this order the information contained in the query at Sl.No.6 of the
appellant’s RTI application.
Item No.7:
The query at item no.8 is also in the nature of seeking reasons and
explanations of the respondents, which doesn’t fall within the scope of Section
2(f) of the RTI Act. Therefore, there shall be no obligation cast on the
respondents to answer these.
5. The appeal is disposed of with these directions.
6. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(A.N. TIWARI)
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Authenticated by –
Sd/-
( D.C. SINGH )
Under Secretary & Asst. Registrar
Page 3 of 3