Central Information Commission
Jyotsna Sharma vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 3 February, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CBODT/A/2023/145785
Jyotsna Sharma .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Income Tax
Officer, Ward 4(1)(7), Aayakar
Bhavan, Race Course Circle,
Vadodara - 390007 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27.01.2026
Date of Decision : 03.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.08.2023
CPIO replied on : 29.09.2023
First appeal filed on : 03.10.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 20.10.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.11.2023
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.08.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:CIC/CBODT/A/2023/145785 Page 1 of 8
"यह क, मेरे प त र व शमा पु ी नरे कुमार शमा िजनका परमाने ट खाता कमांक BHNPSxxxxx है के वारा वष 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-2023 तक के व ीय वष म अदा कये आयकर क त दान करने क कृपा कर।.
यह क, आवे दका ी र व शमा क पि न हूं अतः माननीय उ चतम यायालय वारा गर श रामचं दे शपा डे बनाम सी०आई०सी० 2013 1 एस०सी०सी० 212 एवं माननीय के य सूचना आयोग वारा अमतृ ा चटज बनाम सी०पी०आई०ओ० 2021 एससीसी ऑनलाईन सीआईसी 40 म पा रत नणय के अनुसार आवे दका अपने प त र व शमा के आयकर संबंधी द तावेज क मा णत त ा त करने क पा है ।"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 29.09.2023 stating as under:
"Section 8(1)(j) of the Right To Information Act, 2005 provides that there shall be no obligation to give such information to any citizen notwithstanding anything contained in that Act 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 large public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.10.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 20.10.2023, held as under:
"With reference to your letter dated 03.10.2023 it is submitted that CPIO & ITO ward-4(1)(7) has received three RTI from you and reply of all the three RTIs have been disposed of as follows:
Sr.No. RTI Reg No & Date Date of RTI Date of RTI
Received by CPIO Reply
CIC/CBODT/A/2023/145785 Page 2 of 8
1. RTI Letter dated 05.09.2023 29.09.2023
21.08.2023
2. DGITS/R/T/23/00651 11.09.2023 29.09.2023
dated 31.08.2023
3. CCITA/R/T/23/00243 11.09.2023 29.09.2023
dated 05.09.2023
In all the three replies mentioned above, the complete details of 1st Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided in para 2 of the above referred letters."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Meena, Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1)(7), appeared through video conference.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 16.11.2023 is available on record.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 21.01.2026 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
"Kindly refer for hearing bearing F No. CIC/CBODT/A/2023/145785 dated
08.01.2026. In connection with the same, the facts of the case are submitted as under:
2. The above-mentioned applicant has filed an RTI application dated 21.08.2023 with the Directorate of Income-tax [System], Centralized CIC/CBODT/A/2023/145785 Page 3 of 8 Processing Center, Bengaluru. The DIT System), CPC Bengaluru vide its letter dated 31.08.2023 transferred the RTI under section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 to the office of the CPIO, O/o Income-tax Officer, Ward 4(1)(7), Aaykar Bhavan, GEB Building for necessary action as the PAN of Shri Ravi Sharma was lying with this office.
3. On perusal of the RTI application, it was noticed that the applicant has claimed herself wife of Shri Ravi Sharma and sought certified copies of the ITRs along with enclosures of Shri Ravi Sharma for the years 2017-18 to 2022-23. The information sought was related to the third party i.e. Shri Ravi Sharma and the department hold the information in fiduciary capacity.
Therefore, a letter bearing DIN ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1056501436(1) dated 25.09.2023 was issued to Shri Ravi Sharma requesting for objection, if any, in writing or online against the furnishing the said information to the applicant. Shri Ravi Sharma vide e mail dated 27.09.2023 submitted his objection to sharing of ITRs with Jyotsna Sharma or anyone without specific consent. The copy enclosed as Annexure-A. Hence, no consent was provided by the third party and the information sought was having no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. Accordingly, the RTI application was rejected under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI, Act, 2005 vide this office order bearing No. ITBA/ASK/F/73/2023-24/1056648696(1) dated 29.09.2023.
4. Subsequently, the applicant preferred appeal before the first appellate authority i.e. FAA & Addi. Commissioner of Income tax, Range-1(1), Vadodara. The FAA has passed order under section 19 of the RTI, Act 2005 on on 14.11.2023 and rejected the appeal of the applicant holding that the information sought is personal information of the third party and disclosure of the same does not serve any larger public interest.
5. It is also brought on record that address of Shri Ravi Sharma was mentioned as RZ 72, Dabri Extension, Main Gali No.04, Palam Road, New Delli in PAN database. therefore, his PAN was transferred to his territorial jurisdictional officer Le, Income-tax Officer, Ward-67(1), Delhi, Civic Center Building, SKD Basti, Press Enclave, Ajmeri Gate, New Delhi-110002 le mail [email protected]) ID of the CPIO & ITO, Ward-4(1)(7), Vadodara is 6. The email [email protected]"
Decision:CIC/CBODT/A/2023/145785 Page 4 of 8
5. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that the information sought was denied by the Respondent CPIO on the ground of third-party information and claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
6. The Commission observes that in cases involving matrimonial disputes and maintenance proceedings, courts have recognized the necessity of limited financial disclosure to enable fair adjudication of the rights and liabilities of the parties. At the same time, such disclosure cannot be extended to complete personal financial documents or detailed records, as the RTI Act does not permit blanket disclosure of third-party personal information.
7. In this case, the Appellant is the legally wedded wife of Shri Ravi Sharma, whose information has been sought. The Commission also takes note of the fact that such financial information may be critical in matters related to matrimonial disputes, maintenance claims under Section 125 CrPC, where financial transparency is necessary for adjudication of rights and liabilities. It is an established principle in such proceedings that a spouse is entitled to know the financial status of the other.
5. The Commission referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP (C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 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."
11. However, making a distinction with the said judgment, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. in the matter of Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Pawan Kumar Jain and others W.A. No. 168/2015 and Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others W.A. No. 170/2015 dated 15.05.2018 had in a matter where the information seeker had sought the salary details of her husband from the employer held as under:
"While dealing with the Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellant and the Respondent No.1 are husband and CIC/CBODT/A/2023/145785 Page 5 of 8 wife and as a wife she is entitled to know what remuneration the Respondent No.1 is getting. Present case is distinguishable from the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) and therefore the law laid down by their Lordships in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) are not applicable in the present case. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No.341/2008. Similarly, the W.A. No.170/2015 is also allowed and the impugned order passed in W.P. No.1647/2008 is set aside."
Moreover, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in the matter of Rajesh Ramachandra Kidile vs. Maharashtra SIC and Ors in W.P. No. 1766 of 2016 dated 22.10.2018 held as under:
"8. Perusal of this application shows that the salary slips for the period mentioned in the application have been sought for by the Advocate. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the salary slips contain such details as deductions made from the salary, remittances made to the Bank by way of loan instalments, remittances made to the Income Tax Authority towards part payment of the Income Tax for the concerned month and other details relating to contributions made to Provident Fund, etc. It is here that the information contained in the salary slips as having the characteristic of personal nature. Any information which discloses, as for example, remittances made to the Income tax Department towards discharge of tax liability or to the Bank towards discharge of loan liability would constitute the personal information and would encroach upon the privacy of the person. Therefore, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Girish Ramachandra Deshpande (supra) such an information could not be disclosed under the provisions of the RTI Act. This is all the more so when the information seeker is a person who is totally stranger in blood or marital relationship to the person whose information he wants to lay his hands on. It would have been a different matter, had the information been sought by the wife of the petitioner in order to support her contention in a litigation, which she filed against her husband. In a litigation, where the issue involved is of maintenance of wife, the information relating to the salary details no longer remain confined to the category of personal information concerning both husband and wife, which is available with the husband hence accessible by the wife. But in the present case, as stated earlier, the application has not been filed by the wife.CIC/CBODT/A/2023/145785 Page 6 of 8
9. Then, by the application filed under the provisions of the RTI Act, information regarding mere gross salary of the petitioner has not been sought and what have been sought are the details if the salary such as amounts relating to gross salary, take home salary and also all the deductions from the gross salary. It is such nature of the information sought which takes the present case towards the category of exempted information.
10. All these aspects of the matter have not been considered by the authority below and, therefore, I find that its order is patently illegal, not sustainable in the eyes of law."
12. In light of the above observations, the Respondent should ascertain that the Appellant is the legally wedded wife of Shri Ravi Sharma and there is a maintenance case/matrimonial case pending before the Court. For said purpose, the Appellant is directed to submit complete relevant documents related to his matrimonial dispute/maintenance case before the Respondent Public Authority, within a week from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of the same and on being satisfied, the Respondent is directed to provide the "generic details of the net taxable income/gross income" of the estranged husband for the period as mentioned in the RTI application as per the record available with them. The above directions are to be complied with by the Respondent within three weeks from the date of receipt of the documents from the Appellant. The other personal information of third party need not to be disclosed to the Appellant.
13. The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Sd/-
(S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date CIC/CBODT/A/2023/145785 Page 7 of 8 Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1)(7), Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Circle, Vadodara - 390007 CIC/CBODT/A/2023/145785 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)