Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3810

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Information Commissioner
D Dhaya Devadas – Appellant
Versus
CPIO, Income Tax Officer (HQ) – Respondent
CIC/CCACH/A/2024/112432|CIC/CCACH/A/2024/633587

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri B John Solomon
For the Respondents: Shri Lal Manish Nath Sahu

RTI requests for tax field reports denied as voluminous, repetitive, under higher authority control; tax disclosure laws override RTI; right not absolute, repetitive filings misuse obstructing administration.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 6(1), 7, 8(1)(j), Rule 3 - Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 119(2)(b), Section 138 - Requests for copies of factual reports and remarks submitted by field officers to higher tax authorities regarding condonation of delay in filing returns - CPIO denied information citing applicant as representative of company (not natural citizen), repetitive nature, and reports under control of higher authority - FAA upheld - Commission dismissed second appeals holding information cumbersome, voluminous, requiring compilation, non-conforming to RTI Rules; right to information not absolute; repetitive requests misuse RTI, clog resources; special provisions of tax law on disclosure override general RTI Act; reports submitted to higher authority disclosable only by that authority (Paras 13-18)

(B) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Misuse and repetitive applications - Repeated filings on similar matters by same appellant (over 90 disposed cases) against same authority counter-productive, obstruct administration, waste resources; citizens advised judicious use, not absolute right (Paras 20-23)

Facts of the case:
Appellant, representing company, filed two RTI applications seeking copies of letters/remarks/reports sent by tax field offices to higher authorities (including CBDT) on petition for condoning delay in filing returns for multiple assessment years. CPIO rejected first as invalid (company not citizen), repetitive, under personal information exemption; provided final orders in second. FAA upheld. Second appeals clubbed, heard together; respondent absent but submitted written note relying on precedents.

Findings of Court:
Responses by CPIO/FAA proper, in consonance with RTI Act; no interference warranted; respondent to share latest submission with appellant free of charge.

Issues: Validity of RTI by company representative; disclosability of subordinate reports post-final decision by higher authority; repetitive RTI filings; interplay of tax disclosure laws with RTI Act.

Ratio Decidendi: RTI requests rejected as voluminous, requiring compilation, not per rules; right not absolute, balanced against efficiency; tax-specific disclosure rules (special law) prevail over RTI (general); higher authority controls disclosure of submitted reports; repetitive filings misuse process, clog system.

Result: Second appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. rti timelines and procedural history (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. appellant seeks departmental remarks on delay condonation (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. cpio denies rti for non-citizen and repetition (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. second rti seeks factual reports post-cbdt rejection (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. cpio provides cbdt orders, faa upholds (Para 17 , 18)
6. hearing notes repetitive filings by appellant (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
7. respondent justifies non-disclosure citing cic precedents (Para 23)

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.11.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:

“Sub: 1. Director [OT & WT] CBDT has informed during the hearing held on 07.06.2023 based on our request to condone the delay in filing of our Income Tax Return on 08.01.2021 under Sec.119/[2][b] of Income Tax Act and the said Director has informed us that the Income Tax Department has given some negative remarks against us.

2. The Deputy Secretary (ITCC), Central Board of Director Taxes has passed Order under Sec. 119(2)(b) of IT Act, 1961 vide their Order No. F.No. 312/113/2020-OT dated 8.11.2023 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. Accordingly, the Board in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (b) of sub-section(2) of Section 119 of Income Tax Act declines to condone the delay in filing the revised ROI for AY 2013-14. The petition is rejected.

3. The Deputy Secretary (ITCC), Central Board of Director Taxes has passed Order under Sec. 119(2)(b) of IT Act, 1961 vide their Order No. F.No. 312/113/2020-OT dated 8.11.2023 for the Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2018-19. Accordingly, the Board in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (b) of sub-section(2) of Section 119 of Income Tax Act declines to condone the delay in filing the revised ROI for AYs 2014-15 to 2018-19. The petition is rejected.

4. Request you to kindly furnish a copy of your remarks given letter in which you have given your remarks to the said Director, based on our request to them to condone the delay under Sec. 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 - Reg.

Ref: 1. Our PAN No. AAACI1505K.

2. Our RTI application No. RTI/DI-88/109/2023-24 dated 29.06.2023 to Central the Public Information Officer, Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1

3. The CPIO, 0/0. the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 DIN & Letter No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1054176598(1) dated 06.07.2023.

4. The Income Tax Officer (HQ) (Coord) & CPIO, O/o the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax letter No. CHE/Coord/101(27)/RTI(188)/2023- 24 dated 07.08.2023.

5. The Deputy Secretary (ITCC), Central Board of Director Taxes has passed Order under Sec. 119(2)(b) of IT Act, 1961- vide their Order No. F.No. 312/113/2020-OT dated 8.11.2023 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and the Assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19.

1. With reference to the above, we have received the above said 2 Orders dated 08.11.2023 mentioned under Ref. Nos. 4 & 5 from the Deputy Secretary (ITCC Central Board of Direct Taxes rejecting our petition dated 10.07.2020 for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in filing the Returns of Income for the Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2018-19, seeking to claim carry forward of losses and refunds from A.Ys 2013-14 to 2018-19.

2. In this connection, we have already filed our RTI application No. RTI/DI- 88/109/2023-24 dated 29.06.2023 to the Central Public Information Officer, Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 and we extract below the relevant portion of RTI questions for your kind perusal.

i. "Copy of your letter submitted to the Director (OT & WT) Central Board of Direct Taxes for the remarks called based on our request to condone the delay in filing the Income Tax returns based on our request made on 10.07.2022 and also earlier given letter by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax given to the Chairman, 'Central Board of Direct Taxes after having an decisions with earlier submitted remarks based in the our belatedly uploaded o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3810

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONVinod Kumar Tiwari, Information CommissionerD Dhaya Devadas – AppellantVersusCPIO, Income Tax Officer (HQ) – RespondentCIC/CCACH/A/2024/112432|CIC/CCACH/A/2024/633587

RTI requests for tax field reports denied as voluminous, repetitive, under higher authority control; tax disclosure laws override RTI; right not absolute, repetitive filings misuse obstructing administration.

Cases Referred (1)

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Information Commissioner
D Dhaya Devadas – Appellant
Versus
CPIO, Income Tax Officer (HQ) – Respondent
CIC/CCACH/A/2024/112432|CIC/CCACH/A/2024/633587