TAX MANAGEMENT
NAGARAJA
USN:-1DA18MBA25
Pradeep Vidhani vs Chief Commissioner Of Income
Tax ... on 22 November, 2019
FACTS:-
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought
information regarding the TEP/ Complaint filed by
him against M/s Priyadarshini Polysacks Ltd.,
Kolhapur.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 14.03.2018 denied
disclosure of information u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act,
2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant
approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated
12.04.2018, concurred with the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
Appellant:Absent,
Respondent: Mr. Pooranmal Raigar, ITO through VC;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The NIC representative and
the Respondent present at the hearing confirmed the absence of the Appellant. In
the meanwhile, the Commission was in receipt of an e-mail from the Appellant
dated 18.11.2019 at 12.11 PM wherein he stated that the hearing scheduled for
11:50 AM concluded before time which was against the principles of natural
justice since he was not given an opportunity of hearing. The Commission
referred to the contents of Para 8 of the notice of hearing dated 24.10.2019
instructing the parties concerned to reach the venue at least 30 minutes before the
scheduled time of hearing which the Appellant failed to comply with. However,
the Commission heard the matter as scheduled. The Respondent while explaining
the background of the matter submitted that a suitable reply was provided by the
CPIO/FAA claiming exemption under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. In
addition, it was informed that the Applicant had sought information in respect of
a complaint/tax evasion petition filed by him on CPGRAM against M/s
Priyadarshani Polysacks Limited, Kolhapur, which is under investigation.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant
dated 07.11.2019 wherein it was submitted that the information sought by
him had been wrongly and malafidely denied by the Respondent Public
Authority which was in contravention to the provisions of the RTI Act,
2005. Moreover, the First Appellate Authority had decided the matter
without offering an opportunity for hearing. A reference was also made to
the decision of the Commission in Appeal Number 22/ICA/2016 in the
matter of Farida Hoosenally vs. the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-
IX, Mumbai dated 30.03.2006 in support of his contention. Furthermore,
Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, was referred to by the Appellant for
imposition of penalty in case of delay in reply. Therefore, it was prayed to
the Commission to impose penalty on the erring FAA for not providing
him an opportunity of hearing at First Appeal stage as also requested for
compensation for mental harassment and financial loss along with the
information sought by him in his RTI application.
The Commission observed that similar matters had been heard and
adjudicated by it in Appeal NO.:-CIC/CCITM/A/2017/131266-BJ +
CIC/CCITM/A/2017/154219-BJ dated 11.07.2018; CIC/BS/A/2016/002098-
BJ dated 06.02.2018, Appeal NO.:-CIC/CCITB/A/2016/290776-BJ
With regard to imposition of penalty on the FAA, the Commission referred
to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain
vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"The Appellate Authority is not the custodian of the information or the
document. It is only a statutory authority to take a decision on an appeal with
regard the tenability or otherwise of the action of the CPIO and, therefore,
there is a conscious omission in making the Appellate Authority liable for a
penal action under Section 20 of the RTI Act and if that be the scheme of the
Act and the legislative intention, we see no error in the order passed by
the learned writ Court warranting reconsideration."
DECISION:
In the light of the facts available on
record and the submissions made by the
Respondent, and considering the decisions
cited above, the Commission instructs the
Respondent to disclose the broad outcome
of the investigation to the Appellant as
soon as the investigation is completed.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
THANK
YOU
