O R D E R

FACTS:

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 28 points on whether it was mandatory for professionals like Advocates to file his/ her Income tax Return; whether Shri Bhavya Khanna S/o Shri Kuldip Krishan Khanna claiming himself as an Advocate filed the ITR as per records, etc.

The CPIO, vide its letter dated 23.07.2018 denied disclosure of information on points 1 to 14 u/s 8 on the ground that the same pertained to a Third Party. As regards the information sought on points 15 to 26 it was stated that the same did not pertain to their office. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 29.08.2018 stated that no proper and sufficient reasons had been provided by the Appellant for seeking the information. Furthermore, the Appellant had not mentioned the larger public interest/ cause being served through the information. Hence, it was stated that the department holds the information pertaining to its assesses in fiduciary capacity.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Malhotra;

Respondent: Mr. Vikas Kumar, ITO;

The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information was not provided to his satisfaction since a blanket denial was made u/s 8 on points 01 to 14 of the RTI application without providing the point wise reasons for the same. Similarly, instead of transferring the application to the concerned CPIO on points 15 to 26, the CPIO merely stated that the aforementioned points did not pertain to their office. During the hearing, the Appellant also submitted that dispute on the merits of the issues regarding which information was sought by him was presently sub-judice before the Court of Ms Vandana Jain, Ld. ADJ, South East, Saket District Courts in Civil Suit No CS DJ 316/2019. In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA and stated that the information sought on points 01 to 14 was exempted from disclosure u/s 8 of the RTI Act, 2005. As regards the remaining points it was stated that the information on the same was not available with them. On being queried regarding the reason for denying generic information as sought in point no 01 regarding whether it was mandatory for professionals like Advocate to file ITR and suo motu disclosure of conditions in which an ITR was required to be field by an Assessee, the Respondent stated that submission of ITR was dependent upon the Income of the Assessee but could not provide the details of FAQ on the subject being uploaded on the website of the Public Authority. On being further questioned regarding the reasons for not transferring the application on points 15 to 26, if the information was not available with the concerned CPIO, no satisfactory response was offered by the Respondent.

The provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and various judgements on the subject matter clearly establishes that it is the duty of the CPIO to provide clear, cogent and precise response to the information seekers. Section 7 (8) (i) of the RTI Act, 2005 also states that where a request for disclosure of information is rejected, the CPIO shall communicate the reasons for such rejection. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 clearly stated that the PIO acts as the Pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act. The relevant extracts of the decision are as under:

“ 7“it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken”. The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act.”

8………….The