Central Information Commission
Soni Kumari vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 1 October, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCITL/A/2024/110848
Soni Kumari .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Income Tax Officer,
Range 1(1), Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan,
57, Ram Tirath Marg,
Lucknow - 226001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.09.2025
Date of Decision : 01.10.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.02.2024
CPIO replied on : 27.02.2024
First appeal filed on : 07.03.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.03.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09.04.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 10.02.2024 seeking the following information:
"I am writing to request information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. I am Soni Kumari, the wife of Chandra Prakash Gupta, and I have filed a maintenance case in The Honorable Family Court of Sitamarhi, Page 1 of 6 Sitamarhi, Bihar, bearing case no. 18/2020 against my husband, Chandra Prakash Gupta. The purpose of this request is to obtain details regarding my husband's income for the past seven year. This information is required to assist the court in the maintenance case I have filed.
I kindly request the following information:
1. "The gross annual income of Chandra Prakash Gupta, identified by PAN card number AMTPGXXXX, spanning from the assessment year 2017-2018 to 2023-2024.""
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 27.02.2024 stating as under:
"1. The information sought by you cannot be provided as per Section 8(1) (1) of the RTI Act,2005 which clearly states as under:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
2. Apart from the above, consent was also sought for from Shri Chandra Prakash Gupta, that whether this Department should provide the information sought for. Vide his reply dated 23.02.2024 he has stated that he does not gives any consent to disclose his personal information to any person."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.03.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 22.03.2024, held as under.
"The RTI application of the applicant & Order of CPIO/Income Tax Officer-1(1), Lucknow dated: 27.02.2024 and Appeal of the applicant has been perused. On perusal of the above, it is found that there is no need to interfere in the order of the CPIO dated:27.2.2024."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 2 of 65. A written submission dated 22.09.2025 has been received from Shri. Jitendra Kumar Verma, ITO-1(1)-cum-PIO, Lucknow and same has been duly taken on record. the relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..1. Brief Background The applicant Smt. Soni Kumari filed an RTI application dated 20.02.2024 secking details of the gross annual income of her husband, Sh. Chandra Prakash Gupta, PAN: AMTPG4172A, from AY 2017-18 to AY 2023-24.
Since the information pertained to a third party, a notice under section 11(1) of the RTI Act was issued to Sh. Chandra Prakash Gupta. The third party vide letter dated 23.02.2024 expressly denied consent for disclosure of his personal financial information. Accordingly, the then CPIO denied the request under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority also upheld the order on 22.03.2024.
2. Legal Position i. Section 8(1)(j), RTI Act, 2005 a. Personal information, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, is exempt. b. Income tax returns, gross income, and PAN-linked financial details are consistently recognized as "personal information" by Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts. ii. Section 8(1)(e), RTI Act, 2005 a. Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship is exempt unless larger public interest justifies disclosure. b. Income details furnished by taxpayers to the Income Tax Department are held in fiduciary capacity.
iii. Judicial Precedents a. Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC & Ors. (2013) 1 SCC 212 The Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that personal information such as service records, income tax returns, and assets cannot be disclosed under RTI unless there is a larger public interest. Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam (2018) 11 SCC 426-Reinforced the principle that personal information of employees/individuals, including financial information, is exempt. Several CIC orders have consistently followed this binding precedent.
3. Rebuttal to Case Laws Cited by the Applicant
(i) Rajesh Ramchandra Kidile v. Maharashtra SIC (WP 1766/2016, Bombay High Court):
Binding vs. Persuasive Authority Page 3 of 6 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (2013) and Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam (2018) has already laid down that income tax returns and income details are "personal information"
exempt under section 8(1)(j) unless a larger public interest is shown. These are binding precedents under Article 141 of the Constitution. The Bombay High Court judgment is only persuasive, and it cannot override the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Appropriate Forum for Relief In Rajesh Ramchandra Kidile, the High Court emphasized that the wife was already before a competent court in a matrimonial dispute. Maintenance proceedings under CrPC or matrimonial statutes give the court power to call for income records directly from the Income Tax Department.
That route ensures disclosure under judicial supervision, with safeguards.
RTI is not a substitute for judicial process RTI is meant for promoting transparency in public activities. Personal disputes (husband-wife maintenance matters) fall within the jurisdiction of family/matrimonial courts, not the RTI framework. If every matrimonial litigant uses RTI to obtain private income-tax data, it would bypass statutory protections and the role of the courts.
"Public Interest" vs. "Private Interest"
The Bombay High Court considered the wife's personal interest in getting maintenance.
But "larger public interest" under section 8(1)(j) means something beyond individual disputes it refers to an interest that benefits the community at large.
Matrimonial maintenance cases, however genuine, remain personal/private disputes, not matters of public interest.
(ii) CIC order dated 08.01.2021 in Appeal No. CIC/CCTTB/A/2019/121513 (Amrita Charrerjee v. CPIO, ITO, Ganganagar, Bengaluru):
• This is only an order of the CIC, not a judgment of the constitutional courts.
• Further, CIC orders are not binding precedents and must be tested against the backdrop of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rulings, which categorically protect income-tax information as personal.
4. Application of Law to Present Case • The information sought is personal financial information of a third party.
• The third party has explicitly refused consent under section 11(1).
Page 4 of 6• There is no demonstrated "larger public interest" that outweighs the protected privacy rights. • The applicant has only claimed her personal interest as spouse, which, while understandable, does not meet the statutory threshold of "larger public interest" under section 8(1)(j).
5. Prayer In view of the above, it is humbly submitted that:
• The orders of the CPIO and FAA are in consonance with the RTI Act and settled legal principles.
• Disclosure of income details of Sh. Chandra Prakash Gupta would amount to an unwarranted invasion of his privacy and would breach the fiduciary relationship between the taxpayer and the Income Tax Department.
• The second appeal deserves to be dismissed..."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri. Jitendra Kumar Verma, ITO-1(1)-cum-PIO- participated in the hearing through video-conference.
6. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/ Complaint on respondent while filing the same in CIC on 09.04.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirms non-service.
7. Respondent submitted that the third party gave his written objection not to divulge his personal information with any person, therefore, information sought by the Appellant was denied under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, he agreed to abide by the directions of the Commission.
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and in furtherance of hearing proceedings, directs the Respondent to ascertain Shri Chandra Prakash Gupta is legally wedded husband of the Appellant and there is a maintenance case/matrimonial case pending before the judicial court. For said purpose, the Appellant is Page 5 of 6 advised to submit complete litigation documents and other supportive documents before the Respondent Public Authority, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of the same, the Respondent is directed to provide only the "generic details of the net taxable income/gross income" of Appellant's estranged husband for the period as mentioned in the RTI application, free of cost, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the documents from the Appellant.
9. The First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance of the directions.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range - 1, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57, Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow - 226001 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)