CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/S/A/2009/000216
(Hearing at Mumbai)
Appellant : Shri S. P. Goyal
Public Authority : Income Tax Department
(through Ms.R. Bhama,
CIT (A) - XII, Mumbai
Shri S. S. Meena, DCIT(HQ)
Date of hearing : 03.08.2009
Date of decision : 03.08.2009
FACTS
:
By his letter of 25.07.2008, the appellant had sought the following
information with respect to para-58 of order dated 25.06.2007 passed by CIT(A),
Mumbai, in appeal No. CIT(A)-XII/12(2)(1)/I.T.-396/05-06:-
01 “Please inform the date of receipt of two letters both dated
24.03.2005, copy of which are enclosed herewith.
02 Please inform whether these letter dated 24.03.2005 were
acknowledged within 7 days as per Citizen Charter or referred in your
subsequent letters or discussed these letters in the order dated
10.02.2006 passed by Income Tax Officer 12(2)(1), Mumbai – Mr.
Anand Nagrale in case of S.P. Goyal, A.Y. 1999-2000.”
2. The CPIO had passed the following order dated 21.08.2008 in this regard:-
“Refer query No. 1 :
The query made by the applicant is based on the observations made by the
Assessing Officer in the remand report sent to the CIT(A)-XII, Mumbai
which was quoted by the CIT(A)-XII, Mumbai in his order dated 25.06.2007.
The copies of the letters enclosed with the application shows that they were
addressed to the ITO, Ward-12(2)(1), Mumbai and no copy was endorsed to
the CIT(A)-XII, Mumbai. As such, the query No.1 of the application is
rejected.
Refer query No. 2 :
Since the query No.1 has been rejected, the question of providing information
as per query No. 2 does not arise at all.
In the result, the information sought for is rejected. ”
3. The appellate authority had upheld the decision of the CPIO.
4. Hence, the present appeal.
5. Heard on 3.08.2009. Appellant present. The Public Authority is represented
by the officers named above. It is the submission of Shri Goyal that he wants to
have a categorical response from CPIO as to whether two of his letters dated
24.03.2005 are available in the I.T. Appellate file or not. It is also his submission that
he has been malafidely denied information and, therefore, compensation should be
awarded to him under Section 19(8) (b) of RTI Act as per the following details :-
“1. “To file RTI application, cost of paper, typing and postage or delivery
charges Rs.600/-.
2. Cost of Rs.1500/- for filing Appeal 19(1) under Right to Information
Act, 2005 including papers, typing, photocopies, drafting charges and
delivery cost.
3. To file appeal 19(3), cost of Rs.2,000/- including papers, typing,
photocopies and postal charges.”
6. Ms. Bhama would submit that she would check up the records and give
categorical response to the Appellant. She would also submit that no compensation is
awardable to the appellant as the CPIO had duly responded to the RTI application.
Decision
7. As assured, Ms. Bhama may revisit the matter and provide parawise
response to the Appellant in four weeks time. It may also be observed that the
Appellant has not been able to establish his claim for compensation and the same is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.L. SHARMA)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this
Commission.
(K.L. Das)
Assistant Registrar
Address of parties :-
1. Ms. R. Bhama 2. Shri S.P. Goyal
CIT(A)-XII, Aaykar Bhawan, 103-A, Krishna Chamber
Maharashi Karve Marg, 59, New Marine Lines,
Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020