Central Information Commission
K V Krishnan vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 20 September, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CCACH/A/2017/142585-BJ
Mr. K. V. Krishnan,
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax,
O/o the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Corporate Range-6, 121 Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17.09.2018
Date of Decision : 20.09.2018
Date of RTI application 03.01.2017
CPIO's response 25.01.2017
Date of the First Appeal 22.02.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 19.04.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 22.06.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding the copy of report of progress furnished by the Assessing Officer for the AYs 1998-1999 to 2000-2001 in respect of SWP (Madras) Limited as per direction given by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Range VI, Chennai-34 vide letter dated 27.08.2010 and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 25.01.2017 while referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner and others, denied disclosure of information for points 1 & 2 u/s 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and for point 3, it was stated that the Applicant had not mentioned the name of the Bench which had passed such order, relevant appeal number etc. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached Page 1 of 5 the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 19.04.2017, while concurring with the response of the CPIO, relied upon the several other decisions of the High Court of Delhi and the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. K. V. Krishnan through VC;
Respondent: Ms. Ann Mary Baby, CPIO / Addl. CIT, Corporate Range-6, Chennai through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that incomplete and incorrect information had been provided by the Respondent. The Appellant further asserted that the Respondent had malafidely failed to provide correct information to the Appellant. It was further alleged that the Respondent Public Authority was in favour of the offences u/s 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 committed by the said Company for the A.Y.s 1998-1999 to 2000- 2001 for maintenance of fake books of accounts, records etc, submission of false return of income, orders executed as manufacturers for items other than principal products of the company during closure of the factory. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that the information sought was related to personal information of the company SWP (Madras) Limited which had no relationship to any public activity or interest.
The Commission noted that similar matters had been heard and adjudicated by it in Appeal Nos. CIC/BS/A/2015/001989-BJ dated 18.05.2017; CIC/BS/A/2015/001987-BJ dated 08.03.2017 and CIC/CC/C/2015/000041-BJ dated 08.03.2017.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 10.09.2018 wherein while reiterating the RTI application, reply/order of the CPIO/FAA, it was submitted that the information sought by the Appellant was personal information of the Third Party and the same could not be disclosed as no larger public interest had been made out by the Appellant. Further, the reliance was placed to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 and in the case of Milap Choraria v. CBDT CIC/AT/A/2008/000628 dated 15.06.2009 and in the case of Naresh Kumar Trehan v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta in W.P.(C) 85/2010 & CM Nos.156/2010 & 5560/2011 dated 24.11.2014 to substantiate their claim. Therefore, it was prayed to the Commission to dismiss the present Appeal based on the above facts.
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:
"13......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 the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the Page 2 of 5 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."
In this context, the decision of the Commission in Milap Choraria v. CBDT CIC/AT/A/2008/000628 dated 15.06.2009 can be cited wherein it had been held as under:
"15. From the above discussion, it would appear that the Income Tax Returns have been rightly held to be 'personal information' exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of section 8(1) of RTI Act by the CPIO and the Appellate Authority; and the appellant herein has not been able to establish that a larger public interest would be served by disclosure of this information."
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 had 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"
The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the decision of Shailesh Gandhi v. CIC and Ors WP 8753 of 2013 dated 06.05.2015 had held as under
"16......the said contention is thoroughly misconceived as filing of Income Tax Returns can by no stretch of imagination be said to be a public activity, but is Page 3 of 5 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 prerequisites for the same are satisfied.
23...........Since the right to privacy has been recognized as a fundamental right to which a citizen is entitled to, therefore unless the conditions mentioned in Section 8 (1) (j) is satisfied, the information cannot be provided."
With regard to the imposition of penalty on the CPIO/PIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission took note of the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 11271/2009 Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. (delivered on:
01.06.2012) wherein it was held:
" 61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 610 of the Companies Act, it could not be said that the information had been withheld malafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure on them. They would not be able to ful fill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger well for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created by the RTI Act in disrepute."
Similarly, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Page 4 of 5 Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:
"Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.
......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
The Appellant could not substantiate his claims regarding malafide denial of information by the Respondent or for withholding it without any reasonable cause. DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of decisions pronounced by the Commission in similar matters on 18.05.2017 and 08.03.2017, it is evident that a suitable response had been provided to the Appellant. No further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 20.09.2018
Page 5 of 5