Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 1 docs
Section 5(4) in The Right To Information Act, 2005

User Queries
Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Central Information Commission
Mr.Rakesh K Gupta vs Cbdt on 24 September, 2012
                CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                     Club Building (Near Post Office)
                   Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067
                          Tel: +91-11-26105682


                    File No.CIC/DS/A/2011/000113/RM


Appellant:                              Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta


Public Authority:                       Ministry of Finance(CBDT)


Date of Hearing:                        4.5.12


Date of decision:                       24.9.2012



Heard today, dated 4.5.12



Appellant is present.


Public Authority is not present.


The Appellant was heard and records perused.


FACTS

The appellant vide his application dated 7.7.09 sought the following information 1

1. Details of instance reported by the informer against IT department including CBDT, Finance Ministry etc for taking improper action on the tax evasion petitions to help the tax evaders at the cost of government revenue from 1980 onwards.

2. Cases referred in point 1 also related to reward payment with name of tax evader, file number of informer with CBDT and reward amount paid.

3. With reference to cases referred in point 1 related to improper action by IT department including name of tax evader, officers involved/reported for improper action with designation and brief points of improper action reported.

4. List of Committees (with names of members with designation and court case reference number if any, according to which Committee was formed to resolve pending cases as mentioned in point no.1.

5. Provide list of Committee formed for matter effecting grievance of informer related to reward and improper action on TEP by the IT department in which persons of CBDT are members or CBDT received the reports.

6. Provide record reference with like file number with file heading used by each committee.

7. Provide inspection of records in point no.6.

8. Copy of facts used to decide the policies as mentioned in point no.4 & 5.

9. Copy of records pointed while inspection of records mentioned in point no.7.

2. The CPIO vide order dated 7.8.09 intimated that with reference to point no.1, was not available centrally, points 2 and 4 do not pertain to IT(Investigation) section and on point no.5, the matter was being handled in an identical RTI.

3. The Appellate Authority vide their order dated 17.9.09 held that on points 1 and 3, the appellant should approach the CPIOs of the field offices directly and seek information directly from them. As regards points 5 to 9, these are not held centrally and hence the appeal was disposed of.

2

4. Not satisfied with the response, the Appellant filed the present appeal.

5. Appellant made the following submissions:

i. Regarding point 1 and 3, all the information is available with Director (Inv-1), CBDT. The appellant is seeking information available with the CBDT only and hence asking him to approach the CPIOs of the field offices is not accurate. ii. Point No.2 and 4-9 : Asking the appellant to seek information from Director (Inv.2&3) CBDT, is not correct. The CBDT should have provided information by taking help of Section 5(4) of the RTI Act.

19.6.12 The appellant is present.

Public authority represented by Shri Nikhil Varma, Under Secy (Inv.I)/CPIO. He has submitted a written request, which is taken on record, requesting for adjournment of the hearing on the grounds that Dy Secy (Inv.I)/First AA for the Investigation-I Div, CBDT, has joined only yesterday i.e. 18.6.12 and has requested for four weeks' time to go through the various files and formulate an appropriate response. Also no notice of hearing was received in the Investigation-I division and the date and time had been ascertained after speaking to the Dy Registrar on 18.6.12 evening.

In view of the above, the hearing is adjourned. A fresh notice be issued.

Sd/-

(Rajiv Mathur) Central Information Commissioner 3 24.09.2012 The appellant is present.

Public authority represented by Shri Nikhil Varma, Under Secy (Inv.I) CBDT/CPIO along with Shri S.L.Anuragi, Under Secy (Inv.III), CBDT.

Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard.

i. Point no.4 of RTI was transferred to Under Secretary (Inv.III) Section. CPIO Shri S.L.Anuragi is directed to provide his response. within ten days.

ii. As regards query no.5, the public authority submitted that no such Committee has been formed. CPIO Shri Nikhil Varma, is directed to provide a response to query no.5, 6, 7 and 8 to the appellant.

The above information shall be provided to the appellant within ten days from date of receipt of the order, under intimation to the Commission.

In respect of other queries, the Commission upholds the decision of the CPIO/AA.

The appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

(Rajiv Mathur) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy forwarded to :

Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, 4 292, SFS DDA Flats, Pocket-1, C & D Block, Shalimar Bagh, Outer Ring Road, New Delhi - 110 088 Shri Nikhil Verma, Under Secretary (Inv.1) & CPIO, CBDT, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001 The Under Secretary (Inv.III) & AA, CBDT, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001 (Raghubir Singh) Deputy Registrar .09.2012 5