Central Information Commission
George C. M. vs Director General Of Income Tax (Inv.) ... on 7 September, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/DGITJ/A/2019/108256
George C. M. ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, O/o. The Income Tax Officer ... ितवादी /Respondent
(Exemption), Udaipur.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : Undated FA : 19-12-2018 SA : 01-03-2019
CPIO : 22-11-2018 FAO : 22-01-2019 Hearing : 31-08-2020
ORDER
1. One Mr. D. Anburose filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Udaipur seeking following information:-
1. "Whether the listed Society/Trusts have registered u/Section 12AA and U/Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961? If yes, please provide the copy of the same.
2. Whether the listed society/trusts have filed its Income Tax Returns?
If yes, please provide the copy of Income tax Returns along with the statement of accounts (Receipts & Payment, income & expenditure and balance sheets) and audit report (Form 10B) for the FY from 2006-2007 to 2006-2017.
3. Whether the listed society/trusts having business in the name of said society/trust? If yes, please provide the business proof of same.
4. If the listed society/trusts having business, the income from their business accounted properly?
5. Whether the listed society/trusts have received invested their funds in mutual funds/shares? If yes, please provide the details thereof.
Page 1 of 146. Whether the listed society/trusts have accumulated their funds? Then, please provide details of Form No. 10 submitted by the society/trusts.
7. Most of the catholic organizations having hundies income from their church and also having local income by way of donations, corpus funds etc. Whether the listed society/trusts have accounted their local income properly?
8. Whether the listed society/trusts have received any foreign contribution? If yes, please provide the details regarding utilization of foreign contribution.
9. Whether the listed society/trusts have submitted their members/trustees PAN in their Income Tax Returns? If yes, members/trustees have filed their income tax returns? If yes, please provide the copy of income tax returns of members/trustee along with the statement of accounts.
10.Whether the listed society/trusts income tax returns have been scrutinized by the designated assessing officer? If yes, please provide the copy of the assessment order along with the history of hearing posted."
2. The appellant, Fr. George C. M. in the capacity of Secretary of the 'Catholic Diocesan Society of Udaipur' has challenged the decision of the FAA wherein it was decided to disclose the information to the original RTI applicant, Mr. D. Anburose. At the first instance, the appellant had objected to the disclosure of information vide letter dated 14-11-2018 which was overruled by the CPIO who in turn decided to disclose the information vide letter dated 22-11-2018. Challenging the decision of the CPIO, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 19-12-2018 against disclosure of information which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 22-01-2019. Thereafter, the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 before the Commission requesting for a direction to the CPIO for not disclosing the information of the 'Catholic Diocesan Society of Udaipur'.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Fr. George C. M. attended the hearing through audio conferencing. Mr. Rajesh Bijawat, ITO(Exemption) participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant argued against disclosure of information on the premise that the 'Catholic Diocesan Society of Udaipur' is not a public authority and the Page 2 of 14 information sought by the original RTI applicant, Mr. D. Anburose does not involve any larger public interest.
5. The appellant apprised the Commission that the 'Catholic Diocesan Society of Udaipur' is a Society for the purpose of Christian Minority religious fulfillment and the membership of the Society is restricted to only those priests who are working in the Catholic Diocese of Udaipur. Therefore, information pertaining to its Income Tax Returns including, inter-alia, statement of accounts and receipts, payments, income, expenditure, balance sheet etc. as sought in the RTI application need not be disclosed. He further asserted that such information lies with the respondent in fiduciary capacity and is also private information which, if disclosed, will cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy by their society. Therefore, the disclosure is covered by the exemptions provided under Section 8(1)(e) and Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. To support his contentions against disclosure of information pertaining to income tax returns of the society, the appellant referred to the judgment dated 03-10-2012 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 titled as Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission & ors., wherein, it was held as under:-
"14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
6. Arguing in favour of disclosing the information, the respondent contended that the 'Catholic Diocesan Society of Udaipur' is a society working for charitable purposes and is accordingly enjoying tax exemptions under the Income Tax Act, 1961. He further contended that it is also receiving funds in the form of donations from Indians as well as from foreign donors. Therefore, there is larger public interest in the matter in disclosing the information. Decision:
7. At the outset, the appellant has vehemently opposed the disclosure of information pertaining to Income Tax Returns of the 'Catholic Diocesan Society of Udaipur' including, inter-alia, statement of accounts and receipts, payments, income, expenditure, balance sheet etc. The appellant has asserted for non- disclosure of information on the premise that their society is not a public authority u/Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. On this point, it is to be noted that the original Page 3 of 14 RTI applicant, Mr. D. Anburose had sought the information from the CPIO, O/o. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Udaipur and, therefore, this Commission is not adjudicating as to whether 'Catholic Diocesan Society of Udaipur' is covered u/Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. As such, the matter revolves around the legality of disclosing the information in light of the applicable exemption(s) under the RTI Act, 2005. Expressing disagreement with the contentions put forth by the appellant, the respondent has claimed that a larger public interest is involved in disclosure of such information since the 'Catholic Diocesan Society of Udaipur' is engaged in charitable activities for the welfare of the Christian minority and accordingly, it is receiving funds in the form of donations from Indians as well as from foreign donors thereby claiming tax exemptions under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
8. Upon hearing the averments of both the parties at great length and on perusal of the available records, this Commission observes that in a similar matter where information regarding charitable trusts claiming exemption u/Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was sought, the Division Bench of the Commission in Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/001091-BJ-Final dated 05-01-2018 while observing that the matter certainly involved larger public interest since the Government was granting exemptions to the third party from payment of taxes allowed for disclosure of information. In the said matter, it was observed as under:-
"The Commission took note of the issue regarding the "personal information"
held by an individual in its personal capacity and the personal information held by the entities/corporations/trusts in their private capacity. In this context, a reference was drawn on the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in Naresh Trehan vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Ors.( 2015) 216 DLT 156 wherein it was held:
"20. It has been contended by the petitioners that the expression "personal information" must also extend to information relating to corporate entities. Inasmuch as they may also fall within the definition of expression "person" under the General Clauses Act, 1897 as well as under the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, I am unable to accept this contention for the reason that the expression "personal information" as used in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the Act has to be read in the context of information relating to an individual. A plain reading of the aforesaid clause would indicate that the expression "personal information" is linked with "invasion of privacy of the individual". The use of the word "the" before the word "individual" immediately links the same with the expression "personal information"Page 4 of 14
21. Black's law dictionary, sixth edition, inter alia, defines the word "personal" as under:- "The word "personal" means appertaining to the person; belonging to an individual; limited to the person; having the nature or partaking of the qualities of human beings, or of movable property."
23. In my view, the aforesaid reasoning would also be applicable to the expression "personal" used in Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The expression 'individual' must be construed in an expansive sense and would include a body of individuals. The said exemption would be available even to unincorporated entities as also private, closely held undertaking which are in substance alter egos of their shareholders. However, the expression individual cannot be used as a synonym for the expression 'person'. Under the General Clauses Act, 1897 a person is defined to "include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not". Thus, whereas a person would include an individual as well as incorporated entities and artificial persons, the expression 'individual' cannot be interpreted to include such entities. The context in which, the expression "personal information" is used would also exclude it application to large widely held corporations. While, confidential information of a corporation is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) (d) of the Act, there is no scope to exclude other information relating to such corporations under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act as the concept of a personal information cannot in ordinary language be understood to mean information pertaining to a public corporation."
22. A perusal of the above definition also indicates that the ordinary usage of the word "personal" is in the context of an individual human being and not a corporate entity. The U.S. Supreme Court has also interpreted the expression "personal" to be used in the context of an individual human being and not a corporate entity. In the case of Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T Inc: 2011 US LEXIS 1899 the US Supreme Court considered the meaning of the expression "personal privacy" in the context of the Freedom of Information Act, which required Federal Agencies to make certain records and documents publically available on request. Such disclosure was exempt if the records "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy". The U.S. Supreme Court held that the expression "Personal" used in the aforesaid context could not be extended to corporations because the word "personal" ordinarily refers to individuals. The Court held that the expression "personal" must be given its ordinary meaning. The relevant extract of the said judgment is as under: "Person" is a Page 5 of 14 defined term in the statute; "personal" is not. When a statute does not define a term, we typically "give the phrase its ordinary meaning,"
[Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S., 559 U.S. 133, 130 S. Ct. 1265, 176 L. Ed. 2d 1, 8 (2010)]. "Personal" ordinarily refers to individuals. We do not usually speak of personal characteristics, personal effects, personal correspondence, personal influence, or personal tragedy as referring to corporations or other artificial entities. This is not to say that corporations do not have correspondence, influence, or tragedies of their own, only that we do not use the word "personal" to describe them. Certainly, if the chief executive officer of a corporation approached the chief financial officer and said, "I have something personal to tell you," we would not assume the CEO was about to discuss company business. Responding to a request for information, an individual might say, "that's personal." A company spokesman, when asked for information about the company, would not. In fact, we often use the word "personal" to mean precisely the opposite of business related:
We speak of personal expenses and business expenses, personal life and work life, personal opinion and a company's view."
Moreover, the Commission also examined the nature of fiduciary relationship involved in the instant matter whereby the Respondent denied the information of ITRs under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI act, 2005. The Commission referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CBSE 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 relationship' are used in section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act in its normal and well recognized sense, that is to refer to persons who act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to a specific beneficiary or beneficiaries who are to be expected to be protected or benefited by the actions of the fiduciary - a trustee with reference to the beneficiary of the trust, a guardian with reference to a minor/physically/infirm/mentally challenged, a parent with reference to a child, a lawyer or a chartered accountant with reference to a client, a doctor or nurse with reference to a patient, an agent with reference to a principal, a partner with reference to another partner, a director of a company with reference to a share-holder, an executor with reference to a legatee, a receiver with reference to the parties to a lis, an employer with reference to the confidential information relating to the employee, and an employee with reference to business dealings/transaction of the employer."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Rajendra Vasantlal Shah vs. Central Information Commissioner and Ors. AIR Page 6 of 14 2011 Guj 70 had observed that any statutory body/ Institution/association meant to serve public good cannot claim to be working in a fiduciary capacity, and held as under:
"8.4. Respondent No. 4 is a religious charitable Trust, functioning under the Scheme formulated by the District Court, having considerable public importance and registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, as a religious charitable Trust. Considering its nature and activities, emerging from the objects of the Trust, it can be stated that disclosure of such information is in relation to any public interest of activity. The Trust is engaged, in public activities, disclosure of its statements and accounts of income-tax returns and assessments orders cannot be withheld under Section 8(1)(e) or (j)of the R.T.I. Act."
In this context, the Commission draws reference to the observations made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 7265 OF 2007 (Date of Decision: 25th September, 2009) wherein the Court has clarified the definition of "information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 and held as under:
"8. Information as defined in Section 2(f) means details or material available with the public authority. The later portion of Section 2(f) expands the definition to include details or material which can be accessed under any 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 Section 2(j) of the RTI Act has to be read in a manner that it effectuates and is in harmony with the definition of the term ―information as defined in Section 2(f). The said expression used in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act should not be read in a manner that it negates or nullifies definition of the term ―information in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It is well settled that an interpretation which renders another provision or part thereof redundant or superfluous should be avoided. Information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act includes in its ambit, the information relating to any private body which can be accessed by public authority under any law for the time being in force. Therefore, if a public authority has a right and is entitled to access information from a private body, under any other law, it is ―information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The term ―held by the or under the control of the public authority used in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act will include information which the public authority is entitled to access under any other law from a private body.
13. Information available with the public authority falls within section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The last part of section 2 (f) Page 7 of 14 broadens the scope of the term information' to include information which is not available, but can be accessed by the public authority from a private authority. Such information relating to a private body should be accessible to the public authority under any other law. Therefore, section 2(f) of the RTI Act requires examination of the relevant statute or law, as broadly understood, under which a public authority can access information from a private body. If law or statute permits and allows the public authority to access the information relating to a private body, it will fall within the four corners of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Commission referred to the observations made by Hon'ble Courts in the light of disclosure of information in "public interest", keeping in view the true spirit behind the promulgation of the RTI Act, 2005, which are as under:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 (CBSE & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors) had observed as under:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption"
The High Court of Delhi in General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 regarding the disclosure of information for public interest, held:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance."
The High Court of Bombay in Shonkh Technology International Ltd. v. State Information Commission Maharashtra Konkan Region, Appellate Authority and United Telecom Limited v. State Information Page 8 of 14 Commission Maharashtra Konkan Region and Ors., W.P. Nos. 2912 and 3137 of 2011 decided on 01.07.2011 held as under:
"The RTI Act is an Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. The preamble of the RTI Act itself refers to this aspect and the constitutional principles enshrined in several articles of the Constitution. It is very clearly postulated that democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold the Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. Therefore, the RTI Act seeks to harmonize these conflicting interests while preserving the paramount nature of democratic ideals."
Moreover, the purpose and object of the promulgation of the RTI Act,2005 was to make the public authorities more transparent and accountable to the public and to provide freedom to every citizen to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, consistent with public interest, in order to promote openness, transparency and accountability in administration and in relation to matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 while explaining the term "Public Interest" held:
"22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants Page 9 of 14 recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]."
It is noted that certain issues have been raised in the RTI application which relate to disclosure of property details of the Public Charitable Trust that categorically works for the public welfare. Moreover, during the course of the hearing it was categorically stated by the Respondent that registration under Section 12A of the IT Act, 1961 was granted to the Third Party and that they were claiming several exemptions/benefits under the said Act. Therefore it is apparent that the matter certainly involved larger public interest since the Government was granting several exemptions to the Third Party from payment of taxes hence there ought 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. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015, while dealing with significance of free flow of information had stated as under:
"The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary that people have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for 'open governance' which is a foundation of democracy."
The Commission further referred to the full bench decision of the CIC in File No. CIC/LS/A/2009/00190 dated 09.03.2010 wherein the CIC had decided on the issue of disclosure of information by the public charitable trusts as under:
"10. We have given a serious thought to the matter. We have also taken note of the pre-amble of the RTI Act which aims at promoting transparency and accountability in the working of the every Public Authority. In this context, it would be apt to advert to sub section 15 of section 2 of the IT Act which defines "charitable purpose". This sub section is extracted below:-
"15. 'Charitable purpose' includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief and advancement of any other object of general public utility. Needless to say, avowed purpose for which these institutions/entities come into existence is charity. Charity and secrecy are contradiction in terms. Any charitable institution should have no secrets and should be open to public for all purposes, including its finances. In other words, in our opinion, it will be in the larger public interest if the identity of the charitable trusts/institutions/entities which are granted exemption from income tax under the statutory provisions are placed in the public domain. Hence, in exercise of powers under section 25(5) of the Page 10 of 14 RTI Act, we hereby recommend that the identity of the charitable trusts/institutions/entities which have been granted exemption from income tax under section 10 & under section 11/12 of the Income Tax Act is placed in public domain by way of suo- motu disclosure by the CBDT in terms of section 4(1)(b) r/w section 4(2) of the RTI Act."
The above mentioned decision of the CIC had been referred in File no. CIC/RM/A/2014/004628 (dated 23.12.2016) File no. CIC/RM/A/2014/ 003758/BS/9478 (dated 11.01.2016) and File No. CIC/DS/A/2012 /000688/RM (dated 10.04.2013). The Commission felt that the Supreme objective/motive with which the Central/State Information Commission were constituted were to set out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. In the light of the preamble of the RTI Act, 2005 there are several exemptions carved out under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 which can be used by a Public Authority to deny information depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. The purpose of the RTI Act, 2005 is transparency and accountability in the functioning of entities which impact citizens' daily lives. Recognizing the significance of the RTI Act, 2005 in empowering people with the means to scrutinize government action, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its judgment delivered by Justice Ravindra Bhat in Indian Olympic Association -Vs- Veerish Malik and others, (WP)(C) No. 876/2007 had held as below:-
"The Act marks a legislative milestone in the post independence era to further democracy. It empowers citizens and information applicants to demand and be supplied with information about public records. Parliamentary endeavor is to extend it also to public authorities which impact citizens daily lives. The Act mandates disclosure of all manner of information and abolishes the concept of locus standi of the information applicant; no justification for applying (for information) is necessary; decisions and decision making processes, which affect lives of individuals and groups of citizens are now open to examination. Parliamentary intention apparently was to empower people with the means to scrutinize government and public processes, and ensure transparency. At the same time, the need of society at large, and Governments as well as individuals in particular, to ensure that sensitive information is kept out of bounds have also been accommodated under the Act."
Furthermore, the Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the Page 11 of 14 rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption."
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on: 21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16. It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and Page 12 of 14 transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require 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 employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) &
(xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
9. In light of the factual matrix of the instant case and the legal principles enunciated in the aforesaid case-laws, this Commission comes to the conclusion that there is larger public interest in the matter in disclosing the sought for information in respect of 'Catholic Diocesan Society of Udaipur' since it is engaged in charitable purpose which demands greater degree of transparency and accountability, as tax exemptions are being claimed from the government. It is not the case where information of an individual is being asked for. If the tax benefits are being claimed by 'Catholic Diocesan Society of Udaipur' on the premise of being a charitable institution, there is no harm in disclosing its income tax returns keeping in view larger public interest. Therefore, this Commission does not find any merit in the arguments advanced by the appellant regarding non-disclosure of the sought for information in respect of 'Catholic Diocesan Society of Udaipur'. However, income tax returns of individual members need not be disclosed since it has the trappings of personal information distinct from the income tax details of 'Catholic Diocesan Society of Udaipur'. Accordingly, the decision of the CPIO as well as the FAA is being upheld except to the extent of income tax returns of individual members as sought on point no. 9. In view of this, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 13 of 1411. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
Information Commissioner (सूसूचना आयु )
िदनां क / Date: 31-08-2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
O/o. The Income Tax Officer-(Exemption),
Ward-Udaipur, Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, 3rd
Floor, Income Tax Office, Sub-City Centre,
Savina, Distt-Udaipur, Rajastahan.
2. George C.M.
Page 14 of 14