Central Information Commission
Shri Pratik Gautam vs Income Tax Department on 30 July, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00339
Dated, the 30th July, 2008.
Appellant : Shri Pratik Gautam
Respondents : Income Tax Department
This second-appeal filed by Shri Pratik Gautam (appellant) came up for hearing on 17.07.2008 pursuant to Commission's hearing notice dated 02.06.2008. Appellant was present through his representative, Shri Naveen Chandra, while the respondents were represented by the CPIO, Ms.Gunjan Misra, Commissioner of Income Tax. Third-party, Shri Prem Shankar Sharma, was present in person.
2. At the outset, the CPIO pointed out that the appellant's and the third-party's families were involved in a running feud about the dowry. Several RTI- applications have been filed by the appellant before the CPIO ― all related to disclosure of information held by the public authority pertaining to the third-party.
3. Through his RTI-application dated 05.07.2008, the appellant had asked for the following items of information pertaining to the third-party, Shri Prem Shankar Sharma. These are summarized below:-
(1) Has any notice been issued to the party, Mr.Prem Shankar Sharma, (2) If yes, then under which section of the Income Tax Act, (3) Has he replied to the notice, (4) If yes, the contents of the said reply be supplied to the appellant (5) Has any assessment been made on the income of the said Prem Shanker Sharma (6) If yes, the amount of tax assessed on him (7) Has the said Prem Shankar Sharma filed any returns available in the record of the income tax department within the last 4 years showing the expenditure of approximately Rs.10 lakhs or any other figure around that in the marriage of his daughter? (8) If yes, has he explained the sources of his money spent in incurring the aforesaid expenditure?
(9) Has the income tax department initiated any proceedings against the said Prem Shankar Sharma independent of the appellant's complaint.Page 1 of 5
4. CPIO referred the matter to the third-party under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act inviting his comments on the disclosure of information to the appellant. The third-party objected to the disclosure of information to the appellant citing, among others, the ground that they feared for their physical safety if this information were to be brought out into the open. The CPIO, therefore, declined to disclose the information to the appellant.
5. The Appellate Authority, through his order dated 12.09.2007, held that the appellant was not entitled to receive the requested information in terms of the ratio of the CIC's decisions in Mithlesh Jain Vs. Income Tax (Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00564) dated 09.03.2007 and then in Neeru Bajaj Vs. Income Tax (Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00644 & CIC/AT/A/2006/00646) dated 21.02.2007. According to the respondents, the type of information requested by the appellant attracted the bar under Sections 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(e) and under certain other sub-sections of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Appellate Authority also cited the fact that the information was held by the public authority in confidence as submitted by the third-party, who had voiced strong objection to the disclosure of any such information.
6. The appellant has countered these points with the plea that it was in public interest that the requested information be authorized to be disclosed. He has questioned the respondents' surmise that the information which they held regarding the income tax-related details of the third-party was at-all held in any fiduciary capacity which would attract Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. He has faulted the Appellate Authority's contention that appellant should explore alternative avenues to settle or resolve the problems which he had with the third-party. He has demanded that the third-party's reply in response to CPIO's notice should be made available to him. He has critiqued the CPIO for not making the third-party's reply available to him during the preceding before the CPIO. It is appellant's argument that the appellant had filed a tax-evasion- petition against the third-party and that he (the appellant) was entitled to know as to what action was taken by the public authority on that petition.
7. The third-party who was present during the hearing pleaded that the requested information should not, under any circumstances, be allowed to be disclosed to the appellant who was plotting against him and his family on account of a persistent dowry dispute between the two families. He further stated that disclosing income tax-related information of any party was bound to bring to that party a whole range of unwelcome attention from those inimically disposed towards him and other anti-social elements. He repeated that he feared for his life and safety at the hands of the appellant's family as well as an attempt by appellant to tar third-party's standing in society and his reputation and demanded that no information should be allowed to go into their hands as regards his income and income tax-related details.
Page 2 of 58. Appellant's Counsel argued that in view of the High Court's decision in Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC, all the CIC decisions cited by the respondents did not apply to the present request for information. According to him, though the investigation in the matter of the tax-evasion petition was conducted by Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation), the relevant report is the outcome of the 'public action', which needs to be disclosed.
9. He also averred that the respondents had failed to perform due diligence in separating exempted information from information which could not be exempted under any of the sub-sections under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. If the respondents so wished they could well have applied the severability provisions of Section 10(1) of the Act and provided the balance information to the appellant.
10. It was put to the CPIO whether proceedings under the tax-evasion petition filed by the appellant had been completed. She replied that the enquiry was presently not completed and was in progress.
Decision:
11. It is an admitted fact that information which the appellant is seeking to access belongs to a third-party and relates to that party's income-related details filed before the Income Tax Department for tax assessment purposes. It has been the consistent position of this Commission in Mrs.Shobha R. Arora Vs. Income Tax, Mumbai (Appeal No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00220; Decision No.119/IC(A)/2006; Date of Decision:14.7.2006) and Ms. Neeru Bajaj Vs. Income Tax (Appeal Nos.CIC/AT/A/2006/00644 & CIC/AT/A/2006/00646; Date of Decision 21.2.2007) that these information were barred from disclosure because these were given by the assessee in trust and confidence to the income tax authorities (Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j)) was personal to the third-party-assessee comprising all manner of information specific to that party, and that it also contained the third-party's commercial information, which were all barred under various sub- sections of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The decision of the High Court cited by the appellant doesn't alter the position as stated above.
12. This brings up the point whether there was any public interest in disclosure of this information. The facts of this case show that the requested information was only superficially connected with any public interest ― general or specific. Appellant has attempted to create an aura of public interest by claiming that through access to the third-party's income tax-related information, he was trying to prevent misuse of income tax laws and highlighting possible tax-evasion, which being a matter of States revenue, was a general concern to the public. I am afraid this is a far-fetched argument. As has been stated in the Commission's decision in Alka Mehta Vs. Income Tax; Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00781; Date of Decision: 10.12.2007, a mere filing of a Page 3 of 5 tax-evasion petition against an income tax assessee and the fact that there was an ongoing investigation about possible tax evasion does not create public interest. These are the standard functions entrusted to and performed by a tax collecting department. These cannot be the reasons to breach the undoubted privacy of the income tax assessee in respect of his income and tax details.
13. Appellant has made a laboured attempt to elevate his personal adversarial relationship with the third-party to the realm of the general public interest. The fact that he has a running dispute with the third-party must be factored into any decision on whether present information relating to the third-party be allowed to reach into this appellant's hands regardless of its ramifications for that third-party. The third-party, who was present during hearing, has categorically stated that he feared physical harm and other forms of intimidation at the hands of the appellant if the requested information were allowed to reach the appellant's hands. In the background of the personal dispute the appellant has with the third-party, the submissions of the third-party cannot be altogether ignored, as it brings the information within Section 8(1)(g) of the Act.
14. In the matter of personal information of third-parties, Commission's earlier decisions in cases are relevant. Some extracts are reproduced:-
Alka Mehta Vs. Income Tax; Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00781; Date of Decision: 10.12.2007:
"19. Protection of personal information, especially of a third-party, is a valuable privilege which should not be lightly done away with or diluted. The Commission has, therefore, steadfastly declined to authorize disclosure of all such information. In cases where an assessee's case is being reviewed by a competent authority on the basis of information provided by an informer, the latter shall naturally be interested in substantial increase in the reassessed taxable income as it shall determine the value of his reward. Larger the reassessed income, larger is the reward. However, such an interest alone will not amount to public purpose even when couched in the altruistic language of safeguarding State-revenue and especially, when internal checks and balances, as well as appellate provision, are all in place to protect the State's revenue. The appellant's apprehension is, therefore, without any basis and her plea is bereft of merit."
Amol Ganpat Rackvi Vs. Income Tax; Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2007/0031; Date of Decision:17.5.2007:
"Since most of the Income Tax Returns also contained commercial information for enabling the Income Tax Department determine the tax liability flowing from it, such Returns should also attract provision of Section 8(1)(d) of the Act. Since a Income Tax Return contains detailed and a variety of information on the basis of which tax liability of a citizen is determined, extreme caution is to be Page 4 of 5 exercised before such information is to be divulged. It may have serious implications for the privacy of the individual as well as his competitive commercial interest. Such information, which is decidedly personal to the individual, could not be authorized to be disclosed on a third party's specious conjecture that the assessee was somehow guilty of tax evasion. Allowing strangers, howsoever well-meaning, to access such privileged information furnished by the assessees to their public authorities, shall not only be a gross intrusion into the privacy of such individuals, but also be a sure invitation to anarchy in the functioning of the public authority. The Commission has been, therefore, quite rightly disinclined to allow disclosure of this information, from the point of view of the privacy of the individual as well as the imperatives of governance."
14. In overall consideration of the entire matter, I see no reason why the information, as requested by the appellant, relating to a third-party be allowed to go into the appellant's hands in order to promote some fictional public interest which the appellant has attempted to portray.
15. In view of the above, I uphold the orders of the respondents and dismiss the appeal.
16. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Authenticated by -
Sd/-
( D.C. SINGH ) Under Secretary & Asst. Registrar Page 5 of 5