Central Information Commission
Nimit Gandhi vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 15 November, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CBODT/A/2021/154524 +
CIC/CCITD/A/2022/100709
Nimit Gandhi ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
1. O/o the Income Tax Officer,
Ward-28(1), RTI Cell, Room No. 1214,
12th Floor, E2-Block, Pratyakshkar Bhawan,
Shyama Prasad, Civic Centre,
Minto Road, New Delhi-110002
2. Income Tax Officer,
Ward-61(1), RTI Cell, Room No.2007,
20th Floor, Block-E-2, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan
Dr. S.P. Mukharjee Civic Centre Building,
New Delhi-110001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing : 14/11/2022
Date of Decision : 14/11/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note - The above-mentioned appeals have been clubbed for decision as these
are based on the same RTI Application.
1
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application(s) filed on : 04/06/2021
CPIO replied on : 09/08/2021 & 30/07/2021
First appeal filed on : 08/09/2021 & 30/08/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : 14/09/2021 & 29/09/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13/12/2021 & 02/01/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 04.06.2021 seeking the following information:
"Harshita Gupta married Nimit Gandhi on 6.12.2019. Nimit Gandhi filed for divorce on 9/12/2020 due to irretrievable breakdown of marriage. As a counter blast Harshita G Gandhi filed numerous false and frivolous cases. In a complaint under the DV Act vide case registration number CTC 253/2021 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi and in another to the CAW cell Saket, New Delhi dated 21-12-2020 vide no. 1010/20, the complainant has categorically alleged that her father Krishan Kumar Gupta has spent in marriage and other related events along with cash and gifts given, amounting over Rs. 1 Cr 27 Lakh, in the period from May 2019 to March 2020 (copies of the complaints attached), among other false and frivolous claims and expenses as stated in the attached complaints.
In light of aforesaid circumstances and in light of the judgement in the case Smt. Basavantamma Vs The CPIO (Central Information Commission) vide Second Appeal No. CIC/CCITB/A/2018/631956, you are requested to provide the following information in the interest of justice, to prevent the abuse of the process of law in the public interest and to aid the accused persons defend the matrimonial cases:
Gross income declared by Krishan Kumar Gupta (PAN no. AAHPG5790L), having residential address A54 Shivalik, New Delhi -110017, in the income tax returns filed for the assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-
21. Gross income declared by Harshita Gupta (PAN no. BNYPG4698A), having residential address A54 Shivalik, New Delhi -110017, in the income tax returns filed for the assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21."2
CIC/CBODT/A/2021/154524 The CPIO & ITO, Ward 28(1) replied to the appellant on 09.08.2021 stating as under:-
1.- "The PAN of the assessee is with Ward-61(1), Delhi. Information may be sought from Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
2. As the information sought is third party information and covers u/s 11 of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, such information cannot be provided."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.09.2021. FAA's order dated 14.09.2021 denied information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and stated as under:
"There is absence of any larger public interest in the matter, the appellant is not entitled to seek the particulars of the Income Tax Returns filed by the third party, Harshita G Gandhi. Further, the order of Hon'ble C1C in case of Snit. Basavaniamma Vs. CPIO vide CIT/CCITBAJA/2018/631956 dated 10/0712020 has been given on facts which are totally different from the ease of the present appellant. While the present appellant is seeking information under RTI Act for defending various criminal and civil charges against himself, but the case referred by the appellant has been given in the context of deciding maintenance in matrimonial dispute."
CIC/CCITD/A/2022/100709 The CPIO & ITO, Ward-61(1) replied to the appellant on 30.07.2021 stating as under:-
"The information sought cannot be provided as the same is 3rd party information and not permitted u/s 8 of the RTI Act 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.08.2021. FAA's order dated 29.09.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO and observed that there being a dispute between the husband and wife there is no larger public interest in disclosure.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
3Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present and assisted by Arzoo Raj through intra-video conference. Respondent: Deepak Kumar, ITO & CPIO, Ward, 28(1) along with Umesh Kumar, ITO & CPIO, Ward 61(1) present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant stated on the lines of his grounds of Second Appeal, wherein the following has been narrated and argued inter-alia:
Because the third party has falsely declared that she and her father had incurred huge expenditure amounting to Rs. 1,27,00,000- in the financial year 2019-20 and on that basis, she has lodged FIR No...u/s 498A/406/34 dated 04.06.2021 and in another case registered before the Metropolitan Magistrate...
g) Because enormous expenditure has never been justified and the same is completely unaccounted for, and therefore in order to seek the truth and disclose the real facts, the Appellant was constrained to file the abovementioned RTI application, in order to defend himself in criminal and civil cases, falsely implicating the present appellant at the hands of Ms. Harshita Gupta alias Harshita G Gandhi, estranged wife of the present applicant, in connivance with her father Mr. Krishan Kumar Gupta.
h) Because the Appellant pleas for disclosure of information sought by him on the grounds that he is a young man who is involved in defending himself in false criminal cases against the State pertaining to dowry related issues and civil disputes under DV act against the involved third party. The appellant emphasizes that the litigation is not a private matter against his wife / father-in-law and therefore, the denial of information could not be justified on the grounds that there was no public interest in the matter and that the issue was purely a personal one.
a. The Appellant submits that in a welfare state, such as ours, the life and security of every individual is a matter which involves the state. Denial of information to him would result in a prolonged litigation of 10 years and more resulting in his losing the best years of his life and career. b. The objective of the RTI filed by the Appellant is in the interest of the society as a whole and in the capacity of a responsible, Iaw abiding citizen of the Country. Therefore, the Appellant is well within his right to 4 seek out the information pertaining gross income of Mr. Krishna Kumar Gupta and Ms. Harshita Gupta alias Harshita G Gandhi.
In furtherance of the said arguments, the advocate of the Appellant invited the attention of the bench to certain earlier orders of the Commission including the Rahmat Bano decision wherein relief was ordered in terms of gross and net taxable income.
Deepak Kumar, ITO & CPIO, Ward, 28(1) reiterated the denial of the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and submitted that the FAA had also arrived at the conclusion that there is no larger public interest in the disclosure of the information and refuted the reliance placed by the Appellant on certain case laws.
Umesh Kumar, ITO & CPIO, Ward 61(1) submitted on the lines of his coordinate CPIO and added that the Rahmat Bano decision is inapplicable here as the facts of the averred cases involved a women's right to maintenance and disclosure was required to determine the amount of maintenance but the Appellant's case is not about determining maintenance but only restricted to defending himself in a criminal case.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that in the grounds of the Second Appeal as well as during the hearing, the categorical argument of the Appellant against the denial of the information is to defend himself in the DV case and divorce case. Similarly, no substantial argument has been placed on record by the Appellant suggesting that the information is being desired to determine/settle a case of maintenance.
The above observation is relevant to mention as this bench has dealt with cases bearing the factual matrix of a spouse seeking income tax details of another in pursuit of a matrimonial dispute and the stance that had been maintained by it so far is that the information sought for in the RTI Application pertains to the personal information of a third party and stands duly exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant(s) has been drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information"5
envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"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..."
Further, in matters concerning the disputes of a husband and wife, the Commission is guided by a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Vijay Prakash vs. Union of India (W.P. (C) 803/2009) dated 01.07.2009 wherein the Court observed that in private disputes such as the present one between a 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.."
Similarly, in the matter of Madhumala B. R. vs. ACIT, Ward 3(3)(1), Bangalore based on the same facts in File No. CIC/CCITB/A/2021/609570, the attention of this bench was invited to the following cases filed by the Income Tax authorities in Bangalore with the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka against the orders of the Commission wherein "gross income" of the spouse was allowed to be disclosed citing the right of maintenance:
1. Jammula Padma Manjari in W.P. No. 18778 of 2017 (CIC/BS/A/2016/001440-BJ)
2. Gulsanober Bano in W.P. No. 34625 of 2019 (CIC/CCITB/A/2017/180340-BJ)
3. Neena Bhatnagar Mani in W.P. No. 7367 of 2020 (CIC/CCITB/A/2018/106268-BJ) 6
4. Chhavi Goel Nee Agarwal in W.P. No. 7281 of 2020 (CIC/CCITB/A/2018/120646-BJ)
5. Devyani Lakher in W.P. No. 7453 of 2020 (CIC/PNBNK/A/2018/104442)
6. Princy Amit Jain in W.P. No. 11233 of 2020 (CIC/CCITB/A/2018/164565).
Nonetheless, since the averred Court cases are reportedly under an interim stay by the Karnataka High Court and the details of the arguments or further orders are not available on record, this bench has accepted the bar on disclosure thus far only in the Madhumala case.
Per contra, in the recent past this bench has met with the continuing reliance placed by a staggering number of applicants on the decision dated 06.11.2020 of a coordinate bench of the Commission in the Rahmat Bano case, wherein the disclosure of the gross income was allowed to the estranged wife on the ground of sustenance and livelihood of the family. The said decision was premised on the judgments of two High Courts i.e 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 by Hon'ble MP High Court as well as Rajesh Ramachandra Kidile vs. Maharashtra SIC and Ors in W.P. No. 1766 of 2016 dated 22.10.2018 by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench). Thus, while making a reference to the ratio laid down in the Apex Court judgement in the Girish Ramachandra (supra) case it was held as under in the Rahmat Bano case:
"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 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 7 W.A. No.170/2015 is also allowed and the impugned order passed in W.P. No.1647/2008 is set aside."
8. 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.
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.8
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."
9. Taking into consideration the aforementioned analysis and the judgments of the Higher Courts, the Commission directs the respondent to inform the appellant about the generic details of the net taxable income/gross income of her husband held and available with the Public Authority for the period 2017- 2018, within a period of 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order. Emphasis Supplied
10. The details/copy of income tax returns and other personal information of third party need not to be disclosed to the appellant except as mentioned at para no. 9 above."
The above yardstick has been also applied in cases where the estranged husband sought for the information regarding their wife's income tax returns in pursuit of a case of maintenance.
Now, there is no material on record for echoing the above stance in the instant case as by the own admission of the Appellant as well as from the findings of the concerned FAA(s) it is ostensibly clear that the information under reference is being desired to merely defend against the criminal cases allegedly filed by the Appellant's estranged wife.
Yet, due to the peculiarities noted in the factual matrix of this case, taking an empathetic view of the Appellant's ordeal, as a matter of limited but conditional relief, the Appellant is advised to provide relevant documents specifically related to the maintenance case, if any, being pursued before the competent Court to the CPIO. Upon receipt of the said relevant documents to satisfy the cause of action of the Appellant, the CPIO is directed to provide the "generic details of the net taxable income/gross income" of the wife for the specified time period as contained in the RTI Application to the Appellant free of cost. A compliance report to this effect shall be sent to the Commission by the CPIO immediately thereafter.
9The Appellant is allowed a window of 30 days to provide the relevant documents to the CPIO and in case of non-receipt of the same by the CPIO within the said time period, the case will be treated as closed.
It may be noted that no relief is being ordered with respect to the income tax returns of the father-in-law as the same is squarely denied as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 (supra).
The appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 10