Scribd
Upload
11 views

JUDGEMENT

judgement in which cic has given income details of third party to person order passed

Uploaded by

Mannu Singla
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
11 views

JUDGEMENT

judgement in which cic has given income details of third party to person order passed

Uploaded by

Mannu Singla
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

2nd Floor, C-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan


Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110066
Tel: 011 – 26182597, 26182598
Email: [email protected]

File No.:-CIC/BS/A/2016/000493-BJ

Appellant : Mr. Vijit Murarka


J 133/134 Aravali Kunj,
Sector -13, Rohini,
Delhi - 110085

Respondent : CPIO & Income Tax Officer


Income Tax Department
Ward NO. 3, Sikar,
Todhi Nagar, Sanwali Road,
Sikar, Rajasthan

Date of hearing : 27/03/2017


Date of Decision : 27/03/2017

Date of filing of RTI application 16.05.2015


CPIO’s response 24.06.2015
Date of filing the First appeal 02.07.2015
First Appellate Authority’s response 05.08.2015
Date of diarized receipt of second appeal by the 07.01.2016
Commission

ORDER

FACTS:

The Appellant through his RTI application sought information on 03 points


relating to copies of Income Tax Returns filed by Mr. Om Prakash Aggarwal
and Ms. Sheetal Kejriwal for the Assessment Year 2005-2006 to 2015-2016,
copy of complete file and supporting documents filed by Ms. Sheetal Kejriwal
in obtaining PAN Number in the name of Sheetal Vijit Murarka and issues
related thereto.

The CPIO vide its reply dated 24.06.2016, refused the information claiming
Third Party information having no relation to any larger public interest,
exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Dissatisfied with the information the Appellant approached the FAA. The
FAA vide its order dated 05.08.2015, passed a detailed and reasoned order
justifying the denial of information by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(j) of the
RTI Act, 2005.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Vijit Murarka (M: 9871886099);

Page 1 of 4
Respondent: Mr. Babu Lal Saini, ITO Ward-1 Sikar (M: 9530400509)
through VC;

The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI Application and submitted
that the information sought by him pertained to Income Tax Returns filed by
his Father in Law Mr. Om Prakash Aggarwal and Wife Ms. Sheetal Kejriwal
for the Assessment Years 2005-2006 to 2015-2016, copy of complete file
and supporting documents filed by Ms. Sheetal Kejriwal in obtaining PAN
Number in the name of Sheetal Vijit Murarka, etc. It was stated that certain
Court cases relating to dowry, domestic violence, maintenance and divorce
application etc. pending against him before Family Court and he desired the
information sought in order to contest his claims before the appropriate
authority. The Appellant relied on the decision of the Commission in Manoj
Kumar Saini v. Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, CIC/LS/A/2010/001044-
DS dated 24.03.2011 wherein in a similar case, information was allowed to
be disclosed. In reply, the respondent submitted that the information
sought by the Appellant was exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 since it related to a third party. The Respondent
further stated that no larger public interest was involved in the matter and
Mr. Om Prakash Aggarwal had also expressed his objection for disclosure of
information. It was also submitted that as per the decision of the
Commission in Manoj Kumar Saini v. Chief Commissioner, Income Tax,
information pertaining to only net taxable income could be provided. In
reply, the Appellant re-iterated that the decision in Manoj Kumar Saini’s
case was applicable to the facts of his case and desired the details of net
taxable income of the individuals mentioned in his RTI application.

The Commission referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in


the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012 (Arising out of CC
14781/2012), decided On: 03.10.2012 in the matter of Girish Ramchandra
Deshpande Vs. CIC and Ors. wherein it was observed as under:
“The Petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause
notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third Respondent
from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable
properties and also the details of his investments, lending and
borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has
also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third
Respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the
marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in
the income tax returns of the third Respondent. The question that has
come up for consideration is whether the above-mentioned information
sought for qualifies to be "personal information" as defined in Clause
(j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.

13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that
the details called for by the Petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued

Page 2 of 4
to the third Respondent, show cause notices and orders of
censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as
defined in Clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of
an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between
the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are
governed by the service rules which fall under the expression
"personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to
any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure
of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that
individual. of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information
Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate
Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the
disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed
but the Petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.”

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Naresh Kumar Trehan v.
Rakesh Kumar Gupta in W.P.(C) 85/2010 & CM Nos.156/2010 &
5560/2011 dated 24.11.2014 had observed as under:

“25. Indisputably, Section 8(1)(j) of the Act would be applicable to the


information pertaining to Dr Naresh Trehan (petitioner in W.P.(C)
88/2010) and the information contained in the income tax returns
would be personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. However,
the CIC directed disclosure of information of Dr Trehan also by
concluding that income tax returns and information provided for
assessment was in relation to a "public activity." In my view, this is
wholly erroneous and unmerited. The act of filing returns with the
department cannot be construed as public activity. The expression
"public activity" would mean activities of a public nature and not
necessarily act done in compliance of a statute. The expression "public
activity" would denote activity done for the public and/or in some
manner available for participation by public or some section of public.
There is no public activity involved in filing a return or an individual
pursuing his assessment with the income tax authorities. In this view,
the information relating to individual assessee could not be disclosed.
Unless, the CIC held that the same was justified "in the larger public
interest"

Furthermore, The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the decision of Shailesh


Gandhi v. CIC and Ors WP 8753 of 2013 dated 06.05.2015 had held as
under

“16......the said contention is thoroughly misconceived as filing of Incom


e Tax Returns can be no stretch of imagination be said to be a public
activity, but is an
obligation which a citizen owes to the State viz. to pay his taxes and
sincethesaidinformation is held by the Income Tax Department in a fidu
ciary capacity, the same cannot be directed to be revealed unless the
prerequisites for the same are satisfied.

Page 3 of 4
23...........Since the right to privacy has been recognised as a
fundamental eight to which a citizen is entitled to, therefore unless the
conditions mentioned in Section 8 (1) (j) is satisfied, the information
cannot be provided.”

Also the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide it decision dated 1/7/2009
[W.P.(C) 803/2009 Vijay Prakash vs. UOI and others] has held that in a
private dispute, between husband and wife, the basic protection afforded by
virtue of the exemption from disclosure enacted under Section 8(1)(j) cannot
be lifted or disturbed unless the petitioner is able to justify how such
disclosure would be in ‘public interest’.

DECISION:

Considering the facts of the case as also the submissions made by the
appellant’s representative, the Commission is satisfied with the reply
furnished by the CPIO/FAA. However, on humanitarian consideration and
in the interest of natural justice, the respondent is directed to provide
generic information of Net Taxable Income/ Gross Income of his father in
law and wife for the period mentioned in the RTI application, within a period
of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

The appeal stands disposed with the above direction.

(Bimal Julka)
Information Commissioner

Authenticated True Copy:

(K.L.Das)
Deputy Registrar

Page 4 of 4

You might also like