Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/001279-BJ. Case: Pushpender Singh Vs ITO-1(4) & CPIO. Central Information Commission

Case NumberAppeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/001279-BJ
CounselFor Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: Furkan Ali, ITO
JudgesBimal Julka, Information Commissioner
IssueRight To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 11, 2, 2(f), 3, 8, 8 (1) (j), 8(1), 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j)
Judgement DateApril 13, 2017
CourtCentral Information Commission

Court Information Central Information Commission Cases
Judgment Date 13-Apr-2017
Party Details Pushpender Singh Vs ITO-1(4) & CPIO
Case No Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/001279-BJ
Judges Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner
Advocates For Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: Furkan Ali, ITO
Acts Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 11, 2, 2(f), 3, 8, 8 (1) (j), 8(1), 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j)


Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner


1. The Commission vide its RTI Application sought information on 02 points regarding the details of the companies/persons/firms from whom Rs. 303.35/-lakhs rupees of Income Tax had been recovered by the IT Department and the dates on which such amount was deposited etc.

2. The CPIO, Amroha vide its letter dated 29.02.2016 denied information as per Section 8(1)(e) r/w Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 18.04.2016 concurred with the reply of the CPIO.


Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Pushpender Singh (M: 9837894794) through VC;

Respondent: Mr. Furkan Ali, ITO (M: 8005445892) through VC;"

3. The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI Application and stated that no information has been provided to him, till date. Explaining the background of the case, the Appellant stated that a huge amount of penalty was imposed on him by the Respondent authority and therefore information pertaining to such tax recoveries was sought by him to substantiate his claim that prejudicial treatment had been meted out to him by the Respondent Authority. In reply, the Respondent reiterated the contents of his letter dated 29.02.2016 and stated that the said information was held in fiduciary capacity and also being personal in nature, could not be provided as per Section 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j) r/w Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005. The Appellant vehemently opposed to the blanket approach of Section 8 undertaken by the Respondent in non-disclosure of the information. The Respondent further informed that the Appellant had filed several RTI Applications in his office and suitable reply to all such RTI applications had always been provided to him in a time bound manner. On a query from the Commission regarding the opportunity of personal hearing before the FAA, the Appellant confirmed it but took strong objections to the non- application of mind by the FAA in disposing of his First Appeal.

4. In this context, the Commission observed that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Prakash Manubhai Patel...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT