CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION …..
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00009
Dated, the 2nd March, 2007.
Appellant: Shri Yamaji Sakharam Rathod, Gram Sakha President, Hira Nagar,
Bhrashtachar Virodhi Jan Andolan, Hira Nagar, Post Hatral, Tal. Mukhed,
District Nanded, Pincode-431 715.
Respondents: Shri Dalbir Singh, Commissioner of Income Tax & CPIO,
Office of Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad, Aayakar Bhawan,
Opp. Holy Cross English School, Aurangabad
Shri P.J. Thomas Kutty, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & AA,
Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhawan,
Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, Nashik-422 002, Maharashtra.
This second appeal is by Shri Yamaji Sakharam Rathod is against the order dated 1.8.2006 of the Appellate Authority (AA), Shri P.J. Thomas Kutty, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik. The appellant’s RTI-request to the CPIO was dated 18.5.2006 and the reply of the CPIO was on 12.6.2006.
2. The appellant had asked for information regarding a certain complaint he had filed with the Income Tax Department about alleged tax evasion by a third party, Shri Venkat Roopsingh Rathod, resident of Hiranagar (Tanda). The position of the CPIO as well as the Appellate Authority was that this matter was personal to a third party and was barred from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
3. There is no doubt that AA has come to a reasoned conclusion that, given the nature and type of information, requested by appellant, there is ground to believe that what was being sought was only the personal information about a 3rd party, which was barred u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, fact which AA seemed not to have duly focused on is that the complaint made by the appellant to the Income Tax authorities was about a matter of alleged tax evasion. Such a matter cannot be said to be a personal matter of the alleged tax evader. These evasions involved public money and, therefore, were related to a public activity and have had a public purpose. I am, therefore, of the view that the appellant is entitled to a response from the public authority about the status of action, if any, on the petition he had submitted to them on 18.5.2006. Larger public interest justifies disclosure of this information.
4. In consideration of the matter and after hearing the parties, I am of the view that the CPIO should make a proper response to the appellant about the status of the action taken by the public authority on the appellant’s petition dated 18.5.2006.
5. It is useful to mention here that in evaluating any information in terms of Section 8(1) (j) utmost care needs to be exercised. There is hardly an information which does not have some “personal” focus. To bar their disclosure only for that reason will exclude vast swathe of information from the ambit of RTI Act. Therefore, each information should be closely scrutinized to determine whether it need be barred from disclosure, if at all. No rule of the thumb can be applied. Each case should be treated as unique.
6. The CPIO, Shri Dalbir Singh, Commissioner of Income Tax is directed to disclose, within two weeks from date of receipt of this order, the response of public authority to the aforesaid petition of appellant.
7. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
Sd/-
(A.N. TIWARI)
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Authenticated by –
Sd/-
( NISHA SINGH )
Joint Secretary & Additional Registrar
Address of parties:
1. Shri Yamaji Sakharam Rathod, Gram Sakha President, Hira Nagar, Bhrashtachar Virodhi Jan Andolan, Hira Nagar, Post Hatral, Tal. Mukhed, District Nanded, Pincode-431 715.
2.Shri Dalbir Singh, Commissioner of Income Tax & CPIO, Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad, Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Holy Cross English School, Aurangabad.
3.Shri P.J. Thomas Kutty, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Appellate Authority, Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhawan, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, Nashik-422 002, Maharashtra.
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00009
Dated, the 2nd March, 2007.
Appellant: Shri Yamaji Sakharam Rathod, Gram Sakha President, Hira Nagar,
Bhrashtachar Virodhi Jan Andolan, Hira Nagar, Post Hatral, Tal. Mukhed,
District Nanded, Pincode-431 715.
Respondents: Shri Dalbir Singh, Commissioner of Income Tax & CPIO,
Office of Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad, Aayakar Bhawan,
Opp. Holy Cross English School, Aurangabad
Shri P.J. Thomas Kutty, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & AA,
Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhawan,
Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, Nashik-422 002, Maharashtra.
This second appeal is by Shri Yamaji Sakharam Rathod is against the order dated 1.8.2006 of the Appellate Authority (AA), Shri P.J. Thomas Kutty, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik. The appellant’s RTI-request to the CPIO was dated 18.5.2006 and the reply of the CPIO was on 12.6.2006.
2. The appellant had asked for information regarding a certain complaint he had filed with the Income Tax Department about alleged tax evasion by a third party, Shri Venkat Roopsingh Rathod, resident of Hiranagar (Tanda). The position of the CPIO as well as the Appellate Authority was that this matter was personal to a third party and was barred from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
3. There is no doubt that AA has come to a reasoned conclusion that, given the nature and type of information, requested by appellant, there is ground to believe that what was being sought was only the personal information about a 3rd party, which was barred u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, fact which AA seemed not to have duly focused on is that the complaint made by the appellant to the Income Tax authorities was about a matter of alleged tax evasion. Such a matter cannot be said to be a personal matter of the alleged tax evader. These evasions involved public money and, therefore, were related to a public activity and have had a public purpose. I am, therefore, of the view that the appellant is entitled to a response from the public authority about the status of action, if any, on the petition he had submitted to them on 18.5.2006. Larger public interest justifies disclosure of this information.
4. In consideration of the matter and after hearing the parties, I am of the view that the CPIO should make a proper response to the appellant about the status of the action taken by the public authority on the appellant’s petition dated 18.5.2006.
5. It is useful to mention here that in evaluating any information in terms of Section 8(1) (j) utmost care needs to be exercised. There is hardly an information which does not have some “personal” focus. To bar their disclosure only for that reason will exclude vast swathe of information from the ambit of RTI Act. Therefore, each information should be closely scrutinized to determine whether it need be barred from disclosure, if at all. No rule of the thumb can be applied. Each case should be treated as unique.
6. The CPIO, Shri Dalbir Singh, Commissioner of Income Tax is directed to disclose, within two weeks from date of receipt of this order, the response of public authority to the aforesaid petition of appellant.
7. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
Sd/-
(A.N. TIWARI)
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Authenticated by –
Sd/-
( NISHA SINGH )
Joint Secretary & Additional Registrar
Address of parties:
1. Shri Yamaji Sakharam Rathod, Gram Sakha President, Hira Nagar, Bhrashtachar Virodhi Jan Andolan, Hira Nagar, Post Hatral, Tal. Mukhed, District Nanded, Pincode-431 715.
2.Shri Dalbir Singh, Commissioner of Income Tax & CPIO, Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad, Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Holy Cross English School, Aurangabad.
3.Shri P.J. Thomas Kutty, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Appellate Authority, Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhawan, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, Nashik-422 002, Maharashtra.
No comments:
Post a Comment