Central Information CommissionNikhil Vikas Joshi vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 22 September, 2022Author:Saroj PunhaniBench:Saroj Punhaniके   ीय सूचना आयोग\n                         Central Information Commission\n                             बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका\n                          Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka\n                          नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067\n\nFile No : CIC/CBODT/A/2021/613924\n\nNikhil Vikas Joshi                                      ......अपीलकता /Appellant\n\n                                        VERSUS\n                                         बनाम\nCPIO,\nOffice of the Income Tax Officer (Exemptions),\nWard-1, Nashik, RTI Cell, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhawan,\n3rd Floor, Room No. 308, Gadkari Chowk,\nOld Agra Road, Nashik - 422002, Maharashtra.    .... ितवादीगण /Respondent\n\nDate of Hearing                     :   18/07/2022\nDate of Decision                    :   16/09/2022\n\nINFORMATION COMMISSIONER :              Saroj Punhani\n\nRelevant facts emerging from appeal:\n\nRTI application filed on            :   14/02/2021\nCPIO replied on                     :   10/03/2021\nFirst appeal filed on               :   10/03/2021\nFirst Appellate Authority's order   :   06/04/2021\n2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :   13/04/2021\n\nInformation sought:The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 14.02.2021 seeking the\nfollowing information pertaining to the Trust name SiddhakalaVishwasth Mandal\nNashik having PAN - AAMTS2328D for AY- 2019-20 and AY-2021. In this regard,\nprovide the information:"1. Income Tax Returns filled for the above period2. Audit report in Form 10B for above period13. Form 10 - Statement to be furnished to AO under section 11(2) of the act, filled\nfor above period."The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 10.03.2021 stating as follows:-".......The above information relates to the third party i.e. "Shiddakala\nVishwasth Mandal, Nashik. Hence, this office vide letter dated. 3/3/2021 and\nserved on 4/3/2021 asking for the consent to the chairman of the trust regarding\nwhether the information should be disclosed to the applicant. The chairman of the\ntrust vide his letter dated 9/3/2021 has denied for providing the information to\nthe applicant as it is confidential record of the trust. As the disclosure of this\ninformation has no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence the\napplicant's application is rejectedu/s 8(j)of the RTI Act, 2005."Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.03.2021. FAA's order\ndated 06.04.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the\ninstant Second Appeal.Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:The following were present:-Appellant: Present through video conference.Respondent: Bapurao Warik, CPIO present through video conference.\nThird Party: Advocate of Shiddakala Vishwasth Mandal, Nashik present through\nvideo conference.The Appellant narrated the grounds of the Second Appeal stating as under:"a) The FAA doesn't consider the facts that the said trust is public\ntrustregistered under Bombay Public Trust Act and also claiming exemptionin\nincome tax u/s 12A, which is granted for public trusts only. Therelevant decisions\nof the CIC in similar cases were also not consideredby FAA while passing the order.b) To justify the involvement of larger public interest in disclosure of\ntheinformation relating to the trust named Siddhakala Vishwasth Mandal\nfollowing facts to be considered -2i) The trust is registered under Bombay Public Trust Act videRegistration No.\nE-414, Nashik.ii) The trust is enjoying the benefit of tax exemption u/s 12 A ofthe Income\ntax act. The 12A Registration No.28/72 (CIT),Nashik.In the case decided byCIC Pritam Nemchand Sanghvi vs Chief\nCommissioner Of Income Tax, on 10 February, 2020,it is noted that registration\nunderSection 12Aof the IT Act,1961 was granted to the Third Party and that they\nwere claiming several exemptions/benefits under the said Act. Therefore it is\napparent that the matter certainly involved larger public interest since the\nGovernment was granting several exemptions to the Third Party from payment of\ntaxes hence there ought to exist transparency and accountability on the activities\nof the Third Party.iii) The entire income of the trust is the donations received from the general\npublic.iv) The trust has taken two municipal lands from Nashik Municipal\nCorporation at nominal rent vide agreement to conducting the public activities.c) While passing the order, FAA has referred to some decided cases to justify\nthat the information sought by me is "personal information" and exempt from\ndisclosureu/s 8(1)(j)of the act. However, the facts of that all cases are totally\ndifferent from the facts of the current case."The CPIO submitted that the information was denied to the Appellant as being\nthe personal information of the Trust. Upon a query from the Commission\nregarding the exemption status of the averred Trust, the CPIO responded in\naffirmative and submitted that the Trust is availing exemption underSection 11of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961.The third party submitted that the Trust is involved in religious works and does\nnot receive any aid from the State but is solely run on the aid provided by the\ndevotees and largely works for the welfare of children. The third party further\npointed out that receiving exemption underIncome Tax Actis not the same as\nreceiving grants-in-aid from the State.3Decision:The Commission observed that in a similar matter where information regarding\ncharitable trusts claiming exemptionu/s 12Aof the IT Act, 1961 was sought, the\nDivision Bench of the Commission in Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/001091-BJ-Final\ndated 05.01.2018 while observing that the matter certainly involved larger public\ninterest since the Government was granting exemptions to the Third Party from\npayment of taxes allowed for disclosure of information. In the said matter, the\nCommission made the following observation:"The Commission took note of the issue regarding the "personal\ninformation" held by an individual in its personal capacity and the personal\ninformation held by the entities/corporations/trusts in their private capacity.In\nthis context, a reference was drawn on the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision inNaresh Trehan vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Ors.( 2015) 216 DLT 156 wherein it\nwas held:'20. It has been contended by the petitioners that the expression "personal\n      information" must also extend to information relating to corporate entities.\n      Inasmuch as they may also fall within the definition of expression "person"under theGeneral Clauses Act, 1897as well as under theIncome Tax Act,\n      1961. However, I am unable to accept this contention for the reason that\n      the expression "personal information" as used in clause (j) ofSection 8(1)of\n      the Act has to be read in the context of information relating to an\n      individual. A plain reading of the aforesaid clause would indicate that the\n      expression "personal information" is linked with "invasion of privacy of the\n      individual". The use of the word "the" before the word "individual"\n      immediately links the same with the expression "personal information".21. Black's law dictionary, sixth edition, inter alia, defines the word\n      "personal" as under:- "The word "personal" means appertaining to the\n      person; belonging to an individual; limited to the person; having the nature\n      or partaking of the qualities of human beings, or of movable property."22. A perusal of the above definition also indicates that the ordinary usage\n      of the word "personal" is in the context of an individual human being and\n      not a corporate entity. The U.S. Supreme Court has also interpreted the4expression "personal" to be used in the context of an individual human\nbeing and not a corporate entity. In the case of Federal Communications\nCommission v. AT&T Inc: 2011 US LEXIS 1899 the US Supreme Court\nconsidered the meaning of the expression "personal privacy" in the context\nof theFreedom of Information Act, which required Federal Agencies to\nmake certain records and documents publically available on request. Such\ndisclosure was exempt if the records "could reasonably be expected to\nconstitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy". The U.S. Supreme\nCourt held that the expression "Personal" used in the aforesaid context\ncould not be extended to corporations because the word "personal"\nordinarily refers to individuals. The Court held that the expression\n"personal" must be given its ordinary meaning. The relevant extract of the\nsaid judgment is as under: "Person" is a defined term in the statute;"personal" is not. When a statute does not define a term, we typically "give\nthe phrase its ordinary meaning," [Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S., 559\nU.S. 133,130S. Ct. 1265, 176 L. Ed. 2d 1, 8 (2010)]. "Personal" ordinarily\nrefers to individuals. We do not usually speak of personal characteristics,\npersonal effects, personal correspondence, personal influence, or personal\ntragedy as referring to corporations or other artificial entities. This is not to\nsay that corporations do not have correspondence, influence, or tragedies of\ntheir own, only that we do not use the word "personal" to describe them.\nCertainly, if the chief executive officer of a corporation approached the chief\nfinancial officer and said, "I have something personal to tell you," we would\nnot assume the CEO was about to discuss company business. Responding to\na request for information, an individual might say, "that's personal." A\ncompany spokesman, when asked for information about the company,\nwould not. In fact, we often use the word "personal" to mean precisely the\nopposite of business related: We speak of personal expenses and business\nexpenses, personal life and work life, personal opinion and a company's\nview."23. In my view, the aforesaid red reasoning would also be applicable to the\nexpression "personal" used inSection 8(1)(j)of the Act. The expression\n'individual' must be construed in an expansive sense and would include a\nbody of individuals. The said exemption would be available even to5unincorporated entities as also private, closely held undertaking which are\n     in substance alter egos of their shareholders. However, the expression\n     individual cannot be used as a synonym for the expression 'person'.Under\n     the General Clauses Act, 1897a person is defined to "include any company\n     or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not". Thus,\n     whereas a person would include an individual as well as incorporated\n     entities and artificial persons, the expression 'individual' cannot be\n     interpreted to include such entities. The context in which, the expression\n     "personal information" is used would also exclude it application to large\n     widely held corporations. While, confidential information of a corporation is\n     exempt from disclosure underSection 8(1) (d)of the Act, there is no scope\n     to exclude other information relating to such corporations underSection\n     8(1)(j)of the Act as the concept of a personal information cannot in\n     ordinary language be understood to mean information pertaining to a\n     public corporation."Moreover, the Commission also examined the nature of fiduciary\nrelationship involved in the instant matter whereby the Respondent denied the\ninformation of ITRs underSection 8(1)(e)of the RTI act,2005. The Commission\nreferred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision inCBSE v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay(2011) 8 SCC 497 wherein it was held as under:22. '.... But the words 'information available to a person in his fiduciary\n     relationship' are used insection 8(1)(e)of RTI Act in its normal and well\n     recognized sense, that is to refer to persons who act in a fiduciary capacity,\n     with reference to a specific beneficiary or beneficiaries who are to be\n     expected to be protected or benefited by the actions of the fiduciary - a\n     trustee with reference to the beneficiary of the trust, a guardian with\n     reference to a minor/physically/infirm/mentally challenged, a parent with\n     reference to a child, a lawyer or a chartered accountant with reference to a\n     client, a doctor or nurse with reference to a patient, an agent with reference\n     to a principal, a partner with reference to another partner, a director of a\n     company with reference to a share-holder, an executor with reference to a\n     legatee, a receiver with reference to the parties to a lis, an employer with6reference to the confidential information relating to the employee, and an\n      employee with reference to business dealings/transaction of the employer.'\n\n      Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Rajendra Vasantlal Shah\nvs. Central Information Commissioner and Ors. AIR 2011 Guj 70 had observed that\nany statutory body/Institution/association meant to serve public good cannot\nclaim to be working in a fiduciary capacity, and held as under:'8.4. Respondent No. 4 is a religious charitable Trust, functioning under the\n      Scheme formulated by the District Court, having considerable public\n      importance and registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, as a religious\n      charitable Trust. Considering its nature and activities, emerging from the\n      objects of the Trust, it can be stated that disclosure of such information is in\n      relation to any public interest of activity. The Trust is engaged, in public\n      activities, disclosure of its statements and accounts of income-tax returns\n      and assessments orders cannot be withheld underSection 8(1)(e)or (j)of theR.T.I. Act.'\n\n       In this context, the Commission draws reference to the observations made\nby the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 7265 OF 2007 (Date\nof Decision: 25th September, 2009) wherein the Court has clarified the definition\nof "information underSection 2(f)of the RTI Act, 2005 and held as under:8. 'Information as defined inSection 2(f)means details or material available\n      with the public authority. The later portion ofSection 2(f)expands the\n      definition to include details or material which can be accessed under any\n      other law from others. The two definitions have to be read harmoniously.The term ―held by or under the control of any public authority in SecQon\n      2(j) of theRTI Acthas to be read in a manner that it effectuates and is in\n      harmony with the deﬁniQon of the term ―informaQon as deﬁned in SecQon\n      2(f). The said expression used inSection 2(j)of the RTI Act should not be\n      read in a manner that it negates or nullifies definition of the term\n      ―informaQon in SecQon 2(f) of theRTI Act. It is well seSled that an\n      interpretation which renders another provision or part thereof redundant or\n      superfluous should be avoided. Information as defined inSection 2(f)of the\n      RTI Act includes in its ambit, the information relating to any private body7which can be accessed by public authority under any law for the time being\n      in force. Therefore, if a public authority has a right and is entitled to access\n      information from a private body, under any other law, it is ―informaQon as\n      deﬁned in SecQon 2(f) of theRTI Act. The term ―held by the or under the\n      control of the public authority used inSection 2(j)ofthe RTI Act will include\n      information which the public authority is entitled to access under any other\n      law from a private body.xxx13. Information available with the public authority falls withinsection 2(f)of\n      the RTI Act. The last part ofsection 2 (f)broadens the scope of the term\n      'information' to include information which is not available, but can be\n      accessed by the public authority from a private authority. Such information\n      relating to a private body should be accessible to the public authority under\n      any other law. Therefore,section 2(f)of the RTI Act requires examination of\n      the relevant statute or law, as broadly understood, under which a public\n      authority can access information from a private body. If law or statute\n      permits and allows the public authority to access the information relating to\n      a private body, it will fall within the four corners ofSection 2(f)of the RTI\n      Act.'\n\n       Furthermore, the Commission referred to the observations made by Hon'ble\nCourts in the light of disclosure of information in "public interest", keeping in view\nthe true spirit behind the promulgation of theRTI Act, 2005, which are as under:The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 (CBSE &Anr.\nVs. Aditya Bandopadhyay&Ors) had observed as under:'37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to\n      information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible\n      citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability.\n      The provisions ofRTI Actshould be enforced strictly and all efforts should be\n      made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) ofSection\n      4(1)of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in\n      the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption'8The High Court of Delhi inGeneral Manager Finance Air India Ltd &Anr v.\nVirender Singh, LPA No.205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 regarding the\ndisclosure of information for public interest, held:'8.The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to\n      secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order\n      to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public\n      authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been\n      spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold\n      Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The\n      said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of\n      independent India and a landmark in governance.'\n\n      The High Court of Bombay in Shonkh Technology International Ltd. v. State\nInformation Commission Maharashtra Konkan Region, Appellate Authority and\nUnited Telecom Limited v. State Information Commission Maharashtra Konkan\nRegion and Ors., W.P. Nos. 2912 and 3137 of 2011 decided on 01.07.2011 held as\nunder:'The RTI Actis an Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right\n      to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control\n      of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in\n      the working of every public authority. The preamble of theRTI Actitself\n      refers to this aspect and the constitutional principles enshrined in several\n      articles of the Constitution. It is very clearly postulated that democracy\n      requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are\n      vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold the\n      Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The\n      revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other\n      public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum\n      use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of\n      sensitive information. Therefore, the RTI Act seeks to harmonize these\n      conflicting interests while preserving the paramount nature of democratic\n      ideals.'9Moreover, the purpose and object of the promulgation of theRTI Act, 2005was to make the public authorities more transparent and accountable to the\npublic and to provide freedom to every citizen to secure access to information\nunder the control of public authorities, consistent with public interest, in order to\npromote openness, transparency and accountability in administration and in\nrelation to matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter ofBihar Public Service Commission\nv. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 while explaining the term "Public\nInterest" held:'22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true\n      connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of\n      the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense\n      with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in\n      terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest",\n      like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not\n      have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in\n      which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its\n      needs (State of Bihar v. KameshwarSingh([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means\n      the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection;\n      something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law\n      Dictionary (8th Edn.)].'\n\n       It is noted that certain issues have been raised in the RTI application which\nrelate to disclosure of property details of the Public Charitable Trust that\ncategorically works for the public welfare. Moreover, during the course of the\nhearing it was categorically stated by the Respondent that registration underSection 12Aof the IT Act, 1961 was granted to the Third Party and that they were\nclaiming several exemptions/ benefits under the said Act. Therefore it is apparent\nthat the matter certainly involved larger public interest since the Government was\ngranting several exemptions to the Third Party from payment of taxes hence there\nought to exist transparency and accountability on the activities of the Third Party.Also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of R.B.I. and Ors. V.\nJayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of10Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015, while dealing with\nsignificance of free flow of information had stated as under:'The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary that people\n      have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of\n      information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public\n      policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for\n      'open governance' which is a foundation of democracy." The Commission\n      further referred to the full bench decision of the CIC in File\n      No.CIC/LS/A/2009/00190 dated 09.03.2010 wherein the CIC had decided on\n      the issue of disclosure of information by the public charitable trusts as\n      under:Needless to say, avowed purpose for which these institutions/entities come\n      into existence is charity. Charity and secrecy are contradiction in terms. Any\n      charitable institution should have no secrets and should be open to public\n      for all purposes, including its finances. In other words, in our opinion, it will\n      be in the larger public interest if the identity of the charitable\n      trusts/institutions/entities which are granted exemption from income tax\n      under the statutory provisions are placed in the public domain. Hence, in\n      exercise of powers undersection 25(5)of the RTI Act, we hereby\n      recommend that the identity of the charitable trusts/institutions/entities\n      which have been granted exemption from income tax undersection 10&\n      undersection 11/12of the Income Tax Act is placed in public domain by way\n      of suo-motu disclosure by the CBDT in terms ofsection 4(1)(b)r/wsection\n      4(2)of the RTI Act.'\n\n      The above mentioned decision of the CIC had been referred in File\nno.CIC/RM/A/2014/004628 (dated 23.12.2016) File no. CIC/RM/A/2014/\n003758/BS/9478 (dated 11.01.2016) and File No.CIC/DS/A/2012 /000688/RM\n(dated 10.04.2013).The Commission felt that the Supreme objective/ motive with which the\nCentral/ State Information Commission were constituted were to set out the\npractical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information\nunder the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and11accountability in the working of every public authority. In the light of the preamble\nof theRTI Act, 2005there are several exemptions carved out underSection 8of\nthe RTI Act, 2005 which can be used by a Public Authority to deny information\ndepending on the facts and circumstances of each case.The purpose of theRTI Act, 2005is transparency and accountability in the\nfunctioning of entities which impact citizens' daily lives. Recognizing the\nsignificance of theRTI Act, 2005in empowering people with the means to\nscrutinize government action, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its judgment\ndelivered by Justice Ravindra Bhat in Indian Olympic Association -Vs Veerish Malik\nand others(WP)(C) No. 876/2007 had held as below:-'The Actmarks a legislative milestone in the post independence era to\n      further democracy. It empowers citizens and information applicants to\n      demand and be supplied with information about public records.\n      Parliamentary endeavor is to extend it also to public authorities which\n      impact citizens daily lives.The Actmandates disclosure of all manner of\n      information and abolishes the concept of locus standi of the information\n      applicant; no justification for applying (for information) is necessary;\n      decisions and decision making processes, which affect lives of individuals\n      and groups of citizens are now open to examination. Parliamentary\n      intention apparently was to empower people with the means to scrutinize\n      government and public processes, and ensure transparency. At the same\n      time, the need of society at large, and Governments as well as individuals in\n      particular, to ensure that sensitive information is kept out of bounds have\n      also been accommodated under the Act.'\n\n       Furthermore, the Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all\ninformation that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and\nmembers of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An\nopen government, which is the cherished objective of theRTI Act, can be realised\nonly if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms.Section 4(2)of the\nRTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo motu\nto the public at regular intervals through various means of communications,\nincluding the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use ofRTI Act.12The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter ofCBSE and Anr. Vs.\nAditya Bandopadhyay and Ors2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:'37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to\n      information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible\n      citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability.\n      The provisions ofRTI Actshould be enforced strictly and all efforts should be\n      made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) ofSection\n      4(1)of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in\n      the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption.'\n\n     The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C)\n12714/2009Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and\nAnother(delivered on: 21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:'16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to\n      the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public\n      Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may\n      be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean- making the information known or communicating the information to the\n      public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media\n      broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading ofSection 4of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is\n      obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the\n      public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the\n      petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions ofSection 4of the RTI\n      Act to publish the information indicated inSection 4(1)(b)and4(1)(c)on its\n      website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of theRTI Actto\n      obtain the information.'\n\n      Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision ofGeneral Manager\nFinance Air India Ltd & Anr. v. Virender Singh, LPA No.205/2012, Decided On:\n16.07.2012 had held as under:'8.The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to\n      secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order\n      to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public13authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been\n      spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold\n      Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The\n      said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of\n      independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the\n      legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require\n      public authorities to:A. Publish inter alia:i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its\nemployees in discharging of its functions;iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts\nallocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations\ngranted. [seeSection 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information\nas possible [seeSection 4(2)].'\n\n      DECISION:Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the\nparties and in the light of the decisions cited above, the Commission directs the\nRespondent to re-examine the matter and furnish the information sought by the\nAppellant....."Adverting to the foregoing settled position, the Commission rejects the denial of\nthe information by the CPIO and finds no merit in the objections raised by the\nthird party against the disclosure of the income tax returns or audit report of the\naverred charitable trust.Having observed as above, the Commission directs the CPIO to revisit the instant\nRTI Application and provide the available information to the Appellant within 1514days from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance report to this effect shall\nbe duly sent to the Commission by the CPIO immediately thereafter.The appeal is disposed of accordingly.Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन)\n                                                                           हािन)\n                                          Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु )\nAuthenticated true copy\n(अिभ मािणत स#यािपत  ित)\n\n(C.A. Joseph)\nDy. Registrar\n011-26179548/[email protected]सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक\n दनांक /15