• Central Information Commissioner, Mr. Rajiv Mathur who is in charge of appeals related to direct-tax matters has passed 8 Orders on 13-12-2013. 2 of these are summarised below:
Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act:
Vide an application dated 28-01-2013, the appellant had sought information on 6 points relating to Ramkumar Jalan Public Charitable Trust which included documents submitted for obtaining PAN, names of all Trustees, details of registered office address, details of Wealth Tax returns filed, TDS certificate issued and short term/long term capital gains.
Appellant observed that he was a tenant in a property which is owned by the Trust and he along with several other tenants were directly affected by the re-development work undertaken by the Trust and as such they cannot be held to be third parties.
Decision:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande has held that Income Tax Returns and related documents are personal information and exempt from disclosure u/s. 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act unless larger public interest is shown. In the instant case, the appellant has not been able to show any larger public interest. Accordingly, the denial of information u/s. 8(1) (j) is upheld.
[Shri Amit Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO (exam)-1 and CIT, Kolkata: CIC/RM/A/2013/000926: Order dated 13.12.2013]
• Information on TEP:
Vide an application dated 16-o2-13, appellant had sought information on 9 points relating to Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) filed by him stating that he was a victim of a false dowry case wherein his wife has alleged that her mother had paid over Rs. 30 lakh as dowry.
CPIO vide letter date 22-02-2013, informed the appellant that the complaint filed by the appellant was being enquired into.
An appeal was filed on 28-03-13 as no information was received.
AA vide order date 28-04-13 directed the CPIO to furnish information to the appellant and disposed of the appeal.
CPIO submitted that investigation into the TEP is still going on and is likely to be completed by December 2013.
Decision
It has been the consistent stand of the Commission that some sort of a feedback should be provided to the information provider once investigation into a tax evasion complaint has been finalised. The complainant has a right to know whether the information provided by him has been found to be false or true. We accordingly direct the CPIO to disclose the broad outcome of the TEP to the appellant once the enquiry is over. Details of investigation are, however, not required to be disclosed.
[Shri S. Z. Ahmed, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Office ward 16 and Add1.CIT, Range 6, Hyderabad: Order No.CIC/RM/A/2013/000923 dated 13-12-2013]
• RTI application: Section 25(5) of the RTI Act
Decision of full Bench (3 members) of the Central Information Commission decision in connection with payment of fees for RTI application and other fees. Hereunder are reproduced paragraphs 11 & 12 of the Order. 1
1. It needs to be underlined that preamble of the RTI Act provides for setting out the practical regime of right to information for the citizenry in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. These words connote a pragmatic approach on the part of all concerned in implementing the provisions of this law. The Commission is aware that difficulties are being experienced by the information seekers in depositing the fee and copying charges and consequential delay in the provision of information. On a consideration of the matter, the Commission makes the following recommendations to the Ministries/Departments/Public Authorities of the Central Government u/s. 25 (5) of the RTI Act
(i) All public authorities shall direct the officers under their command to accept demand drafts or banker cheques or Indian Postal Order (IPO) payable to their Accounts Officers of the public authority. This is in line with clause (b) of Rule 6 of the RTI Rules, 2012. In other words, no instrument shall be returned by any officer of the public authority on the ground that it has not been drawn in the name of a particular officer. So long as the instrument has been drawn in favour of the Accounts Officer, it shall be accepted in all circumstances.
(ii) All public authorities are required to direct the concerned officers to accept IPOs of the denomination of higher values vis-à-vis the fee/copying charges when the senders do not ask for refund of the excess amount. To illustrate, if fee of Rs. 18/- is payable by the information seeker and if he sends IPO of Rs. 20/-, this should be accepted by the concerned officer rather than returning the same, for practical reasons. The entire amount will be treated as RTI fee.
(iii) All public authorities shall direct the CPIOs and ACPIOs under their command to accept application fee and copying charges in cash from the information seekers in line with Rule 6(a) of the RTI Rules. It is made clear that the CPIOs and APIOs will not direct the information seekers to deposit the fee with the officers located in other buildings/offices.
(iv) DoPT shall direct all the CPIOs/APIOs/Accounts Officers to accept money orders towards the deposition of fee / copying charges. This is in line with the order dated 19-09-2007 passed by the Karnataka Information Commission in B.V. Gautma vs. Dy. Commissioner of Stamps & Registration, Bangalore. (KIC 2038 CoM 2007).
(v) The Department of Posts has issued a detailed Circular No. 1031/2007-RTI dated 12-10-2007 for streamlining the procedure of handling applications by various CAPIOs which, interalia contains the following directions:-
“(1) Display of the signboard “RTI APPLICATIONS ARE ACCEPTED HERE” should be made on the notice board/prominent place in the post office. In addition, the names/ addresses of the CPIO and appropriate authorities of the Post office should also be displayed.
(9) The fee alongwith application should be accepted at the same counter and in no case the applicant should be made to visit another counter for depositing the requisite fee.”
The Department of Posts is required to ensure that the above directions are complied with by all concerned.
(vi) As noted herein above, as of now, the RTI applications and the requisite fee are being accepted by the designated Post Offices, numbering above 4700. Considering the size of the country and the number of RTI applicants/applications, the number of designated Post Offices appears to be too small. It has been brought to the notice of the Commission that there are
(vii) 25,464 Departmental Post Offices and 1,29,402 Extra Departmental Branch Post Offices. The Commission, therefore, advises the Secretary, Department of Posts, to consider designating all 25,464 Departmental Post Offices to accept RTI applications and the requisite fee.
(viii) The best solution to the fee related problems appears to be to issue RTI stamps of the denomination of Rs. 10/- by the Deptt. of Posts. It would save time and cost. The Commission would urge Department of Posts/DoPT to consider the viability of this suggestion with utmost dispatch.
(ix) The Commission also directs the CPIOs and the Appellate Authorities to mention their names, designations and telephone and fax numbers in the RTI related correspondence.
12. The Commission expects all Ministries/Departments/ Public Authorities of the Central Government to give urgent consideration to the above recommendations.
(Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs. Ministry of Home Affairs. Complaint No CIC/BS/C/2013/000149/ LS, 000072/LS & 000108/LS: decided on 27-08-2013)
