Central Information Commission
Melwin Titus vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 16 November, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CCITM/A/2021/154217
Melwin Titus ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o the Income Tax Officer,
TDS-2, Thane, RTI Cell,
'Qureshi Mansion',
Gr. Fl., Teen Hath Naka,
Gokhale Road, Naupada,
Thane (West),Maharashtra-400602 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14/11/2022
Date of Decision : 14/11/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16/08/2021
CPIO replied on : 23/08/2021
First appeal filed on : 27/08/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 04/10/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13/12/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.08.2021 seeking information pertaining to the Ashiana C.H.S. Ltd, including inter alia the following:1
"Xx
1. Income tax filing return copies filed for past 13Years, i.e. from the year 2009 To 2021.
2. Insurance copies every years, from the year 2009 To 2021.
3. TDS paid on all repairs and expenses, from the year 2009 To 2021.
4. Invoices& payment details, from the year 2009 To 2021.
5. Society PAN and TAN card number."
The CPIO denied the information to the appellant on 23.08.2021 under section 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.08.2021. FAA's order dated 04.10.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference. Respondent: Mukesh Prakash, ITO (TDS) & CPIO present through video- conference.
The Appellant stated that his written submission dated 07.11.2022 may be taken into consideration for the purpose of his arguments. Relevant extracts of the same are reproduced below in verbatim for the sake of clarity -
".....Indian Evidence Act. 1872 Section 76 in RTI, Request for Information under Right to Information Act 2005, please provide a copies of action taken report for all correspondence regarding my letters. The PIO has failed to respond my RTI. The Public Information officer Give me the certified copies of the entire report of the enquiry to The Aashiana CHS LTD., Naigaon West.
Please provide me copies of the report of the enquiry to The Aashiana CHS LTD., Naigaon West Submit by your office, of Income Tax Officer. TDS-2 Thane Please provide a copies of action taken report, regarding my letters: 06.08.2021, & 1) DOURD/E/2021/02267 2. GRIEVANCE PETITION REG. NO. CBODT/E/2021/02685
3) THN/ITO/TDS-2/MISC/2020-21/982 dated 22.07.2021.2
Please provide a copies of All correspondence reports, regarding my letters:
06.08.2021, & 1) DOURD /E/ 2021/ 02267 2. GRIEVANCE PETITION REG. NO.
CBODT/E/2021/02685 3) THN/ITO/TDS-2/MISC/2020-21/982 dated 22.07.2021. Please provide following copies, xxxxxxxxx Prayer: It is Therefore, My humble Prayer and request to you, your Honour, to impose penalty u/s 20 (1) of RTI Act 2005, 20 (2) RTI Act 2005 and u/s 19 (8) kha of RTI Act 2005 on the concern officer of the concern department and to grant me Natural Justice as per Principal of Law of this land, by providing me the required information / Documents, to protect My Basic Fundamental Rights. And other suitable as per of Law sections against the Public Information Officer (PIO), I want these documents for legal purpose as evidence..."
In response to it, the CPIO reiterated the denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(e) of RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after considering the submissions of the Appellant during hearing observes that a similar issue was earlier heard and disposed off by this bench of another Appellant vide Appeal no. CIC/CCITB/A/2021/134394 on 28.09.2022 and further on 01.11.2022 vide Appeal no. CIC/DGITS/A/2021/640703 with the following observations -
"....Decision:
The Commission having heard the parties observes that the fact that the Appellant is one of the owners in the averred Association is not a disputed fact. Now, based on a perusal of the facts on record while addressing the applicability of Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, relies on certain observations of a Division Bench of the Commission in Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/001091-BJ-Final dated 05.01.2018 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:3
'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".
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."
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 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 4 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."
23. In my view, the aforesaid red 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."
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 5 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 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.' Further, in a recent case involving the similar factual matrix vide File No. CIC/DGITS/A/2021/604597, this bench made the following observation inter alia which is found relevant here:
"Similarly, it is also clarified that the Commission is not going into the merits of any argument of larger public interest touted by the Appellant in the records and the arguments of the Appellant or rebuttal of the Association about the functioning of the association, veracity of its day-to-day activities; finances, audit status whatsoever are extraneous considerations in the facts of the instant case. For further clarity, reference of 'public good' mentioned in one of the dicta (Rajendra Vasantlal Shah vs. Central Information Commissioner and Ors. AIR 2011 Guj 70) relied upon in the division bench decision (supra) of the Commission is only for the purpose of adding perspective in the instant matter as it relates to a resident seeking the income tax records of the 'association' of his own residential society. In other words, the only take away from the aspect of 'public good' in the instant case is that the members of the averred association should least of all have access to the information of the association."6
Adverting to the applicability of the rational of above said decision, it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that there is no invasion of privacy of any individual in the disclosure of the information sought for in the instant RTI Application, similarly, there is no fiduciary relationship between the association and the Respondent office, therefore the invocation of Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act by the CPIO is rejected in the matter.
By extension of said rationale, the Commission directs the CPIO to revisit the RTI Application and provide the available information as sought for therein to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance report to this effect shall be duly sent to the Commission by the CPIO immediately thereafter The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7