National Institute of Public Finance and Policy (NIPFP) report on Estimation of Unaccounted Income and Wealth inside and outside the country was denied u/s 8(1)(a) as classified information - CIC: Appellant absent; No public interest in prolonging appeal

O R D E R

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 09.04.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 19.01.2019 and first appeal dated 12.02.2019:-

- The appellant wanted the NIPFP (National Institute of Public Finance and Policy) report on Estimation of Unaccounted Income and Wealth inside and outside the country.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 19.01.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), National Institute of Public Finance and Policy (NIPFP), Near JNU, New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 28.01.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO’s reply, the appellant filed first appeal dated 12.02.2019. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 26.02.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 09.04.2019 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 09.04.2019 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 28.01.2019 replied that the NIPFP report on Estimation of Unaccounted Income and Wealth inside and outside the country was a classified (i.e. confidential) document in terms of the agreement between the institute and the Ministry of Finance, Government of India (Department of Revenue). Thus, the information sought was exempted under section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act. The FAA vide his order dated 26.02.2019 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO and also claimed exemptions under section 8 (1) (g) & (h) of the RTI Act.

Hearing on 30.06.2021

4.1. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Mrs. Alka Matta, Secy. & CPIO, NIPFP, New Delhi attended the hearing through audio conference.

Interim order dated 11.08.2021

4.2. The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 11.08.2021:-

“6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, notes that information sought pertained to NIPFP as well as Central Board of Director Taxes (CBDT), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance. However, the hearing notice was sent only to the NIPFP. Hence, in the interest of justice and proper disposal of the case, the Registry of this Bench is directed to make party to both the party and issue fresh notice to NIPFP and Central Board of Director Taxes (CBDT), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance along with the appellant. Accordingly, the instant matter is adjourned.”

Hearing on 08.12.2021

4.3. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Admin. Officer & ACPIO, Shri Naveen Bhalla, Consultant (Admin), NIPFP, New Delhi, attended the hearing in person.

4.4. The Commission passed the following directions on 31.01.2022:

“6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, noted that in the previous hearing CBDT, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance was also made party in this case and accordingly notice was served. However, the CPIO, CBDT, vide letter dated 07.12.2021 sought adjournment on the medical grounds and in his absence proper facts of the case could not be ascertained. Moreover, the appellant also remained absent despite notice. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the parties are given a final opportunity to appear before the Commission and present the case. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned. In the meantime, the parties may file their written submission, if any, a copy of which is also to be served to the appellant, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.”

Hearing on 25.07.2023

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Secretary/CPIO and Shri Naveen Bhalla, Consultant (Admin), National Institute of Public Finance & Policy, New Delhi attended the hearing in person.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought a copy of the report on Estimation of Unaccounted Income and Wealth inside and outside the country, which was prepared pursuant to the directions of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance. They further submitted that the information was denied on the ground that the contents in the MOU entered into between the Institute and CBDT on 21.03.2011 were reflected in the report and were highly confidential in nature. It was also informed that the disclosure of information sought might have affected the economic interest of the country at large and accordingly, exemption under the provisions of section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act was invoked by them.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the CPIO on 28.01.2019. The respondent vide letter dated 28.01.2019 claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act and stated that the NIPFP report on Estimation of Unaccounted Income and Wealth inside and outside the country was a classified (i.e. confidential) document in terms of the agreement between the institute and the Ministry of Finance, Government of India (Department of Revenue). Further, in the absence of the appellant or any written objections thereof, the averments made by the respondent were taken on record. There appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties

Sd/

Suresh Chandra

Information Commissioner

Citation: Tallapaneni Krishna v. National Institute of Public Finance and Policy and CBDT, CIC/MOFIN/A/2019/638163; 03.08.2023