Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/000919-BJ. Case: Vardi Singh Vs CPIO & Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.. Central Information Commission
|Case Number:||Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/000919-BJ|
|Party Name:||Vardi Singh Vs CPIO & Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Vardi Singh, Adv. and For Respondents: Sri Ram Meena, ITO and Anil Kumar Das, JCIT|
|Judges:||Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner|
|Issue:||Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1), 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j)|
|Judgement Date:||April 19, 2017|
|Court:||Central Information Commission|
Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner
1. The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information related to PAN card & certified copies of ITRs of Shri Revat Singh S/o. Shri Bhabhut Singh, Village Udwadia, Via - Somesar, District Pali Haal, Sirohi for the years 2008 to 2015.
2. The CPIO vide its letter dated 23.11.2015 denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 13.01.2016 upheld the CPIO's order.
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Vardi Singh (M: 9983870893) through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Sri Ram Meena, ITO, Sirohi (M: 9530400678) and Mr. Anil Kumar Das, JCIT Range-II, Jodhpur (M: 9530400092) through VC;"
3. The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI Application and stated that no satisfactory reply had been provided to him. It was confirmed however, that the reply of the CPIO/FAA had been received by him. Explaining the background of the entire case, it was stated that there is a long pending personal dispute with the aforesaid individual whose information was being sought and that the matter had also been taken up with the local Police Authorities/Court. The Respondent at Jodhpur reiterated the orders of the CPIO/FAA and stated that the information sought was personal in nature that was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Respondent (Jodhpur) further confirmed that the information sought by the Appellant is not maintained in the format it was sought. In his reply the Respondent at Sirohi submitted that the Appellant had not referred to the larger public interest in disclosure of the information sought. It was also submitted that the Appellant had filed a case with the Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi which had requisitioned the ITRs of the concerned individual for the period 2008 to 2015 and a suitable response was provided...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL