Central Information Commission
Mr.Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs Cbdt on 18 June, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No. CIC/RM/A/2012/000455/LS
(Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs Directorate of Systems)
Dated 18.6.2013
This matter was initially heard on 10.5.2013, the
proceedings of the day are reproduced below:-
"File No. CIC/RM/A/2012/000455/LS
Appellant : Subhash Chandra Agrawal
Respondent : Directorate of Systems
Date of hearing : 18.6.2013
Date of decision : 18.6.2013
FACTS
Heard today dated 10.5.2013. Appellant present. The public authority is represented by Shri Ashish Abrol, Addl. DDIT (AA); Shri Sanjay Kumar, DDIT (CPIO), and Shri Jaswinder Singh, ADIT.
2. In the RTI application dated 20.2.2012, the appellant had sought the following information:-
"1. List of top ten Income Tax assesses for last five different years separately in all the categories like also including (a) Individual, (b) public-limited company, (c ) private-limited company,
(d) charitable organistions, (e) partnership-firms etc.
2. List of top ten Income Tax defaulters for last five different years separately in all the caegories like also including (a) Individual, (b) public-limited company, (c ) private-limited company,
(d) charitable organistions, (e) partnership-firms etc. 1
3. Complete and detailed information onsteps taken to recover Income Tax outstanding from those Income Tax defaulters as referred in query (2) above.
4. Total Income Tax assessed in last five years separately for each year.
5. Total Income Tax collected in last five years separately for each year.
6. Total Income Tax dues written off in last five years separately for each year.
7. Top ten cases of Income Tax being written off separately for last five years in each of the categories like also including
(a) Individual,
(b) public-limited company, (c )private-limited company, (d) charitable organistions, (e) partnership-firms etc. mentioning also date/s and amount/s so written-ff.
8. Any other related information.
9. File-notings on movement of this RTI petition."
3. The CPIO had responded to it vide letter dated 28.3.2012. As regards para 01, the CPIO had informed the appellant that no such data was available in his office. As regards para 02, he had taken the plea that requested information was not disclosable under clauses (d) & (j) of section 8 (1). As regards paras 3, 4 & 5, the CPIO had informed the appellant that this data was not available with him. According to him, para 06 was vague and, therefore, unanswerable. As regards para 05, the CPIO had informed the appellant that information in respect of his Directorate was nil.
4. However, on appeal, the AA in order dated 16.4.2012 had taken a slightly different view. As regards para 01, the AA had taken the stand that the appellant was seeking third party information which was not disclosable to him under clauses (e) & (j) of the RTI Act. However, information requested for in para 04 was ordered to be disclosed to the appellant. As regards para 05, the AA had observed that this information was not available in his office and the para was transferred to DIT (S)-II. As regards paras 2, 3, 6, 7 & 8, the AA had transferred these paras to DIT (Recovery). The net result is that 2 information only on para 04 has been provided to the appellant and no information whatsoever has been provided on paras 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7. In my opinion, paras 08 & 09 can be ignored as the appellant has not sought any specific information.
5. On the request of Shri Ashish Abrol, Addl. DDIT (AA), the matter is adjourned to 18th June, 2013 at 1500 hrs. for further hearing and decision."
2. As scheduled, the matter is further heard today dated 18.6.2013. Appellant present. The public authority is represented by Shri Jaswinder Singh and Shri Ajay Kumar, both ADITs. The parties are heard and records perused. The representation dated 17.6.2013 filed under the signature of Shri Asish Abrol, Addl. DIT (S)-III(I) is also taken on record.
3. During the hearing, it transpires that information on paras 4 & 5 has already been supplied to the appellant. Importantly, the appellant submits that he is no more interested in information on paras 3, 8 & 9. However, he emphatically pleads for disclosure of information on paras 1, 2, 6 & 7.
4. Shri Ashish Abrol in his representation referred to above has this to say on para 01:
"The reply of point no. 01 was denied on the ground that the information sought by the applicant is third party information and no larger public interest is involved in asking for this information. The information in the possession of Income Tax Department is of the nature of commercial confidence of tax payer, the disclosure of which may harm the competitive position of third party. The disclosure of information may endanger the life or physical safety of tax payers. Therefore, the request of the applicant were rejected as per the provision of 8(1) (d), 8(1)(e), 8(1) (g) and 8 (1)(j), of the RTI Act.
The First Appellate Authority has also upheld the decision of the CPIO of DIT(S)-III in respect of para no. 01 of the application."
5. To buttress his point, he has relied on this Commission's decision dated 25.3.2008 in Raj Kumari Vs Income Tax Department (File No. CIC/AT/A/2007/001339 of 25.3.2008). Importantly, he has not offered any comments on paras 2, 6 & 7 of the RTI application.
6. In para 01, the appellant had sought list of 10 Income Tax assessees for last five years in five different categories :
3 (a) Individuals;
(b) Public Limited Companies;
(c) Private Limited Companies;
(d) Charitable Organisations;
(e) Partnership Firms.
It needs to be underlined that the appellant is not seeking information about the assets of the assessees falling in the above categories. He simply wishes to know the names of the 10 assessees falling in each of the above categories. I fail to appreciate the hesitancy on the part of Income Tax Department to disclose their names. In fact, until a couple years ago, the highest Income Tax payers were being publically felicitated by the Income Tax Department. I am not sure whether this practice is continuing at present or not, but, one thing is clear, disclosure of their names is not likely to adversely affect the Central Revenues. On the other hand, it may enthuse and motivate such assessees and others to pay their taxes in an honest and transparent manner. Viewed thus, clauses (d),
(e), (g) & (h) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act are not attracted in this matter. I see no reason why this information should not be disclosed. Shri Abrol's reliance on this Commission's decision in Raj Kumari -Vs- Income Tax Department is not of much help to him as the factual matrix of that case is different from the present one.
7. Now I come to paras 02, 06 & 07 of the RTI application. In para 02, the appellant had sought names of top 10 Income Tax defaulters falling in the above mentioned categories. In this context, it may be pertinent to mention that the question of disclosure of names of individuals who had stashed black money in foreign countries had come up before the Supreme Court of India in Ram Jethmalani & Ors. -Vs- Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 176 of 2009 and IA No. 1 of 2009). The Apex Court in its judgment dated 4.7.2011 has observed that right to privacy is an integral part of right to life. Revelation of bank account details of individuals would be in violation of their right to privacy without establishment of prima facie grounds to accuse them of wrong doings. The State cannot compel the citizens to reveal the details of their Bank accounts unless the State itself, through properly conducted investigations, has come to the prima facie conclusion that there has been violation of law by these individuals. Para 77 of the judgment is extracted below :-
"77. The revelation of details of bank accounts of individuals, without establishment of prima facie grounds to accuse them of wrong doing, would be a violation of their rights to privacy. Details of bank accounts can be used by those who want to harass, or otherwise cause damage, to individuals. We cannot remain blind to such possibilities, and indeed experience reveals that public dissemination 4 of banking details, or availability to unauthorized persons, has led to abuse. The mere fact that a citizen has a bank account in a bank located in a particular jurisdiction cannot be a ground for revelation of details of his or her account that the State has acquired. Innocent citizens, including those actively working towards the betterment of the society and the nation, could fall prey to the machinations of those who might wish to damage the prospects of smooth functioning of society. Whether the State itself can access details of citizens bank accounts is a separate matter. However, the State cannot compel citizens to reveal, or itself reveal details of their bank accounts to the public at large, either to receive benefits from the State or to facilitate investigations, and prosecutions of such individuals, unless the State itself has,through properly conducted investigations, within the four corners of constitutional permissibility, been able to establish prima facie grounds to accuse the individuals of wrong doing. It is only after the State has been able to arrive at a prima facie conclusion of wrong doing, based on material evidence, would the rights of others in the nation to be informed, enter the picture. In the event citizens, other persons and entities have credible information that a wrong doing could be associated with a bank account, it is needless to state that they have the right, and in fact the moral duty, to inform the State, and consequently the State would have the obligation to investigate the same, within the boundaries of constitutional permissibility. If the State fails to do so, the appropriate courts can always intervene."
8. The appellant has sought names of top Income Tax defaulters. Suffice to say that an assessee can be declared a defaulter only when he has not paid taxes as per law. In other words, the Income Tax Department can declare a person a defaulter only after he has exhausted all the legal remedies available to him. Viewed thus, the disclosure of information on para 02 is covered by the ratio of this judgment in as much as the State itself has been able to establish prima facie grounds to accuse the individual of wrong doing through properly conducted investigations/enquiries. In view of this, I am unable to uphold the decision of CPIO on this para.
9. In para 06, the appellant has sought total Income Tax dues written off in last five years, year-wise. He is seeking statistical information. There is no reason why this information should not be placed in public domain. In para 07, the appellant has sought names of top ten cases in which Income Tax has been written off during last five years in each of the five categories mentioned above. Writing off of tax liability impacts the Central Revenues. I see no reason why this information should not be placed in public domain. In my opinion, the people of the country have a right to know the identity of the individuals/companies/firms, whose Income Tax liability has been written off.
10. In my opinion, information on these two paras is not barred from disclosure under any provision of the RTI Act. In view of the above discussion, I set-aside the orders of the CPIO and AA and direct Shri Ashish Abrol, Addl. DIT (S)-III(I), O/o the DIT-(S)III, New Delhi, to provide 5 information on paras 01, 02, 06 & 07 to the appellant in 04 weeks time. However, to reduce his work load, it is ordered that information requested for in paras 01, 02, 06 & 07 may be disclosed only for the last two years, that is, 2010-11 & 2011-12 (as against five years requested for by the appellant).
11. This order may be complied with in 04 weeks time.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K L Das) Dy. Registrar Address of parties
1. The Chairman CBDT, ARA Centre, Jhandewala Extn., New Delhi - 110055
2. Shri Subhash Chandra Agarwal 1775 Kucha Lattushah, Dariba, Chandni chowk, Delhi - 110006 6