Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Shrawan

If PIO is harrassed by the employee of his own department

Recommended Posts

Shrawan

Here is some of the decisions where-in if the public authority is harrassed by the employee by filing frivilous, repetitive and voluminous information. The same can be rejected on this ground and the CIC had mentioned it in many decision. One of the Contributor Shri. Ganpat had helped me compile those cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shrawan

Here are some more decisions:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shrawan

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      Central Information Commission


       
       

      Decision No.296/IC(A)/2006
      F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00607
       
      Dated, the 21st September, 2006


       
       

      Name of the Appellant : Sh. G.P. Pathak, 152/A, Wright Town, Jabalpur
      Name of the Public Authority: Commissionerate of Income Tax-I, Central Revenue Building, Napier Town, Jabalpur
      DECISION
       
      Facts of the Case:
       

      The Lokayukta of M.P. conducted a search under the prevention of Corruption Act and seized cash, jewelry and other assets, worth over Rs.30 lakhs from the appellant. Under the law, these assets were taken under the custody of the DIT. In this backdrop, the appellant had asked for a copy of ‘Note of Satisfaction’ written by the Commission of Income Tax.
      The CPIO has refused to provide the information and sought exemption u/s 8(1)(h) of the Act. The appellate authority has upheld the decision of the CPIO
      The case was heard on 20.9.2006. The appellant could not be present. The CPIO was present, who provided a detailed background of the case. He mentioned that the case is under investigation as the extent of unaccounted assets and the amount of tax evasion are yet to be determined.
      The CPIO showed the copy of the ‘note’ asked for by the appellant. It contains such details as the source of the information and actions taken by the officials, who are identifiable in the note. He, therefore, pleaded that the disclosure of details would endanger the life of officials associated with the process of seizure of assets.
       
      Commission’s Decision:
       

      The disclosure of information sought would identify the officials who were associated with the conduct of raid and seizure of un-accounted assets, under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The matter is also under investigation to determine the extent of tax evasion. The CPIO has, therefore, correctly applie dexemption u/s 8(1)(d) & (h) of the Act, from disclosure of information.
      The appeal is therefore dismissed.

      Sd/-
      (Prof. M.M. Ansari)
      Information Commissioner


    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      Central Information Commission




      Decision No.300/IC(A)/2006
      F. Nos.CIC/MA/A/2006/00436
      CIC/MA/A/2006/00488
       
      Dated, the 22nd September, 2006


       

      Name of the Appellant : Sh. Hemant Kumar Jain, Prop. M/s Alpha Exports, 419/B, Panchratna, Opera House,Mumbai – 400 004.
      Name of the Public Authority: Commissionerate of Income Tax-7(CIT), Room No.611, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai– 400 020.
      DECISION
       

      The appellant sought the following information from the CPIO of the CIT:“the certified copy of the income tax returns, Balance Sheets alongwith annexures and Assessment Orders for financial years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 and information,in respect of M/s White Diamond Industries Limited having its PAN No.AAACW0337R, ward No.Adl/JCIT Rg.7(3).”
      The CPIO denied to furnish the information on the ground that information sought relate to third party and also there is no public interest involved in disclosure of the information. The appellate authority upheld the decision of the CPIO.
      In an umpteen number of cases, the Commission has observed that I.T and property returns filed by persons are personal information of third parties and therefore these should not be disclosed u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act. Likewise, income tax assessment orders, though an outcome of public action, contain both personal details of assessees as well as commercial confidence nature of information. Hence, these documents should not be disclosed u/s 8(1)(d) of the Act.
      The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

      Sd/-
      (Prof. M.M. Ansari)
      Information Commissioner


Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy