CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Room No.306, 2nd Floor, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066. Website: cic.gov.in File No.CIC/RM/A/2014/000150 Appellant: Public Authority: Shri T.C. Gupta, Bangalore Addl. DIT (Vig.) and DIT (Vig.)-II, New Delhi 18.06.2014 18.06.2014 Date of Hearing: Date of Decision: Heard today, dated 18.06.2014 through video conferencing. Appellant is present. Public Authority is represented by Ms Kalpana Kataria, Addl DIT(Vig)/CPIO. FACTS Vide RTI dt 10.6.13, appellant had sought information on 5 points. 2. CPIO vide letter dt 25.7.13, provided a point wise response. 3. An appeal was filed on 6.8.13. 4. AA vide order dt 5.9.13, directed CPIO to provide a copy of his complaint even though the same had been provided with the response of the CPIO. The decision of the CPIO in denying other information u/s 8(1)(g) was upheld. 5. Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard. Appellant submitted that he was issued a warning by Chairman, CBDT and has not been provided a response to query no.2 and 3 of his RTI. His basic submission was that he should at least be provided a copy of the report of DIT(Vig), WZ, Mumbai, on the basis of which a warning was issued to him. CPIO submitted that the information sought was denied u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act as the official is in the habit of making regular complaints against senior officials of the department and has recently published a book captioned Encounters with Corruption and Harassment in Income Tax of an IRS officer. DECISION 6. The Commission finds that the information sought in query no.2 and 3 has been denied u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act which reads as follows: “Information, the disclosure of which will endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes.” 7. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in their judgement dt 10,10.13 (WP(C)4079/2013), has examined this issue in detail and relevant para is extracted below: 1 “11. In my view, the apprehension of the petitioner that if the identity of the author of the file notings is revealed by his name, designation or in any other manner, there is a possibility of such an employee being targeted, harassed and even intimidated by the persons against whom an adverse noting is recorded by him on the file of UPSC, is fully justified. Though, ultimately it is for the members of the UPSC who are to accept or reject such notings, this can hardly be disputed that the notings do play a vital role in the advice which UPSC ultimately renders to the concerned department. Therefore, the person against whom an adverse advice is given may hold the employee of UPSC recording a note adverse to him on the file, responsible for an adverse advice given by UPSC against him and may, therefore, harass and sometime even harm such an employee/officer of UPSC, directly or indirectly. To this extent, the officers of UPSC need to be protected. However, the purpose can be fully achieved by blocking the name, designation or any other indication which would disclose or tend to disclose the identity of the author of the noting. Denying the notings altogether would not be justified when the intended objective can be fully achieved by adopting such safeguards... For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:(i) the copies of office notings recorded in the file of UPSC as well as the copies of the correspondence exchanged between UPSC and the Department by which its advice was sought, to the extent it was sought, shall be provided to the respondent after removing from the notings and correspondence, (a) the date of the noting and the letter, as the case may be; (b) the name and designation of the person recording the noting and writing the letter and; (c) any other indication in the noting and/or correspondence which may reveal or tend to reveal the identity of author of the noting/letter, as the case may be; (ii) if the notings and/or correspondence referred in (i) above contains personal information relating to a third party, such information will be excluded while providing the information sought by the respondent; (iii) the information in terms of this order shall be provided within four weeks from today.” 8. Accordingly, the Commission directs PIO to provide the information sought to the appellant in terms of the above order within three weeks from date of receipt. The appeal is disposed of. Sd/(Rajiv Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner 2 Authenticated true copy forwarded to: The Addl. DIT (Vig.) & CPIO Directorate General of Income Tax (Vig.) Dayal Singh Public Library Building, 1, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg, New Delhi -110002. The DIT (Vig)-II & First Appellate Authority Directorate General of Income Tax (Vig) 1st Floor, Dyal Singh Public Library Bldg. 1, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg, New Delhi Shri T C Gupta Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, E-43, Golden Enclave, Old Airport Road Bangalore -560017. (Raghubir Singh) Deputy Registrar .06.2014 3