Central Information Commission
Kapil Agarwal vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 24 May, 2021
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
िशकायत सं या/Complaint No. CIC/CCITL/C/2019/652024
Mr. Kapil Agarwal ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, O/o. the Income Tax Officer, ... ितवादी /Respondent
Sambahal
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:-
RTI : 27-03-2019 FA : Not on Record Complaint: 26-09-2019
CPIO : 12-04-2019 FAO : Not on record Hearing: 18-05-2021
ORDER
1. The complainant 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, Sambahl seeking following information regarding Smt. Sakshi Goyal:-
1. "ITR returns from FY 2010-11 to till date.
2. Form 26AS from FY 2010-11 to till date.
3. TDS details from FY 2010-11 to till date."
2. The CPIO responded on 12-04-2019. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. Hearing:
3. The complainant, Mr. Kapil Agarwal attended the hearing through audio conferencing. Mr. S K Verma, CPIO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
Page 1 of 94. The complainant stated that the CPIO has wrongly claimed exemption u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 in respect of the ITR, Form 26AS & TDS details of his wife Smt. Sakshi Goyal. Placing reliance on the decision dated 15-05- 2018 rendered by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Smt. Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain and others, W.A. No. 168/2015 and Smt. Sunita Jain v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others, W.A. No. 170/2015, it has been argued that the sought for information should be provided to the complainant.
5. The respondent contended that the complainant has sought the ITR, Form 26AS & TDS details of the third party and therefore, they have claimed the exemption u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
6. With regards to the applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 regarding non-disclosure of the ITR, Form 26AS & TDS details of the third party, this Commission refers 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 has been held as under:-
"12. 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 abovementioned 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 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 Page 2 of 9 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.
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.
7. Furthermore, the complainant has relied on the decision dated 15-05-2018 rendered by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Smt. Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain and others, W.A. No. 168/2015 and Smt. Sunita Jain v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others, W.A. No. 170/2015, wherein, while distinguishing from the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra), the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh has observed as follows:-
"The controversy involved in the present writ appeal is whether the information sought is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act or it is covered by Section 4(1)(b)(x) which obliges the public authorities to display on public domain the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees.
For ready reference, Section 4(1)(b)(x) of the Act reads as under:-
"4. Obligations of public authorities.- (1) Every public authority shall-
(b). publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act.-
(i) xxxxxxxxxx
(ii) xxxxxxxxxx
(iii) xxxxxxxxxx
(iv) xxxxxxxxxx
(v) xxxxxxxxxx
(vi) xxxxxxxxxx
(vii) xxxxxxxxxx
(viii) xxxxxxxxxx
(ix) xxxxxxxxxx Page 3 of 9
(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations."
The question of consideration is whether such information is exempt Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, which reads as under:-
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen.-
(a) xxxxxxxxxx
(b) xxxxxxxxxx
(c) xxxxxxxxxx
(d) xxxxxxxxxx
(e) xxxxxxxxxx
(f) xxxxxxxxxx
(g) xxxxxxxxxx
(h) xxxxxxxxxx
(i) xxxxxxxxxx
(j) 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."
The question is whether information sought is a personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of Shri Pawan Kumar Jain.
In Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Vol.IV (4th edn.) 'public interest' is defined thus:
"Public interest - 1. A matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In Black's Law Dictionary (6th edn.). 'public interest' is defined as follows:
"Public Interest - Something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in Page 4 of 9 question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, state or national government..."
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 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."
8. However, the present matter wherein the complainant has sought the ITR, Form 26AS & TDS details of his wife can be distinguished from the aforesaid decision dated 15-05-2018 of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh on the premise that in that matter the information was sought regarding an employee's salary from the employer being a government department i.e. the BSNL which otherwise was obliged to disclose the remuneration of its employee in view of Section 4(1)(b)(x) of the RTI Act, 2005 and no direction was given by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh to disclose the Income Tax Returns of the employee. Moreover, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramachandra Deshpande (supra) was only distinguished with regard to the limited point that wife was entitled to know the remuneration details of her husband. No other opinion/decision was conveyed regarding other personal information. Therefore, this Commission does not agree with the contentions put forth by the complainant with regard to the applicability of the aforesaid decision dated 15-05-2018 for seeking the details of the ITR, Form 26AS & TDS of his wife.
9. Henceforth, the issue to be decided is whether the complainant claiming to be the legally wedded husband of Smt. Sakshi Goyal is entitled to seek details of her ITR, Form 26AS & TDS. In this regard, it is apt to mention the decision dated 01-07-2009 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 803/2009 titled as Vijay Prakash v. UOI & others wherein it has been clarified 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 Page 5 of 9 'public interest'. In the matter at hand, the complainant has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought is for larger public purpose.
10. Since filing of the Income Tax Returns by an individual with the Income Tax Department is not a public activity and rather it is in the nature of an obligation which a citizen owes to the State viz. to pay his taxes, this information cannot be disclosed to the complainant in the absence of any larger public interest relying on the legal principle enunciated in the judgment dated 11- 06-2015 rendered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 8753 of 2013 titled as Shailesh Gandhi v. The Central Information Commission, wherein, it has been observed as follows:-
"16...The Petitioner possibly being aware of the said position has therefore sought to contend that filing of the Income Tax Returns is a public activity. I am afraid the said contention is thoroughly misconceived as filing of Income 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 since the said information is held by the Income Tax Department in a fiduciary capacity, the same cannot be directed to be revealed unless the pre-requisites for the same are satisfied."
11. 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 has 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."Page 6 of 9
12. The division bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Harish Kumar v. Provost Marshall cum Appellate Authority & Anr, LPA No. 253/2012 dated 30-03-2012 while denying information in a matrimonial dispute has held as under:-
"11. A Division Bench of this Court in Paardarshita Public Welfare Foundation Vs. UOI AIR 2011 Del. 82, in the context of Section 8(1)(j) (supra) and relying upon Gobind Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975) 2 SCC 148, Rajagopal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 6 SCC 632 and Collector Vs. Canara Bank (2005) 1 SCC 496 has held right to privacy to be a sacrosanct facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was further held that when any personal information sought has no nexus with any public activity or interest, the same is not to be provided. Finding the information sought in that case to be even remotely having no relationship with any public activity or interest and rather being a direct invasion in private life of another, information was denied. The full bench of this Court also in Secretary General, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal AIR 2010 Del. 159 has held that the conflict between the right to personal privacy and public interest in the disclosure of personal information is recognized by the legislature by incorporating Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. It was further observed that personal information including tax returns, medical records etc. cannot be disclosed unless the bar against disclosure is lifted by establishing sufficient public interest in disclosure and disclosure even then can be made only after duly notifying the third party and after considering his views."
13. At this juncture, this Commission deems it appropriate to quote Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:-
"2(n):- "third party" means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority."
14. From the words circumscribed u/Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, 2005, it is vividly clear that any person other than the citizen making a request for information can be termed as 'third party'. Therefore, Smt. Sakshi Goyal being a person other than the RTI applicant surely comes within the definition of 'third party'. Moreover, the CPIO has also not intended to disclose the information and has rather pleaded that there is no public interest in the matter. Furthermore, this Commission also does not find any public interest which outweighs the harm caused in its disclosure.
15. This Commission also refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 & Ors. dated 13-11-2019 titled Page 7 of 9 as CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, wherein, it was observed as follows:-
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive."
16. In light of the aforesaid decisions and the legal principles enunciated therein, this Commission after considering the factual matrix of the case is of the opinion that in the absence of any larger public interest in the matter, the complainant is not entitled to seek details of ITR, Form 26AS & TDS of the third party, Smt. Sakshi Goyal which are exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, this Commission upholds the exemption claimed by the CPIO and accordingly, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
17. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
18. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date 18-05-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 8 of 9
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
O/o. the Income Tax Officer
Station Road, Near SM College
Chandausi, Sambahal, Uttar Pradesh-244412
2. Mr. Kapil Agarwal
Page 9 of 9