Central Information Commission
Ram Prabhakar vs Director General Of Income Tax (Inv.) ... on 27 May, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DGITD/A/2024/605920
Ram Prabhakar .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Office of the Income Tax Officer,
Ward-52(1), Room no 2109,
21st Floor, E-2 Block, Pratyaksh
Kar Bhawan, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee
Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26.05.2025
Date of Decision : 26.05.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.12.2023
CPIO replied on : 09.01.2024
First appeal filed on : 12.01.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 06.02.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 12.02.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 20.12.2023 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 9
"This is regarding the partnership firm M/s Sham Enterprises running from 27, Prithviraj Market, Opp Khan Market, New Delhi-110003. The address is I-63/64, Lajpat Nagar-2, New Delhi-110024. There are three partners in the said firm
1.Mr. Sushil Prabhakar
2.Mr. Vijay Prabhakar
3.Mr. Ram Prabhakar PAN of Firm - AAPFS5171D BANK - HDFC Bank, Khan Market A/C No. -13582000001057 I am being paid share of profit in the said firm. The profit that I have taken in the years which has been transferred from the firm to my account for financial years 2019-2020 - Rs. 3,32,750 /-
2020-2021 - Rs. 3,32,750 /-
2021-2022 - Rs. 3,02,500 /-
I filed a case on Mr. Sushil Prabhakar in Saket court and also filed a police complaint for concealment of documents. Even after filing these, Mr. Sushil Kumar Prabhakar has time and again refused to show us ITR Statements, Audited Balance sheets and other such documents. I am still receiving a cheque with which he is attaching a letter for the share of profit and for the past few months have started paying me through his own account stating it as a share of profit and not paying through firms account for which there is a strong presumption of fraud in the said firm. I am not encashing those cheques for reasons. The amount that is being given to me after not encashing those cheques 2020-2021 - Rs. 3,32,750 /-
2021-2022 - Rs 3,63,000 /-
2022-2023 - Rs. 3,72,075/-
Kindly share if the income tax is being paid for the said firm in the time period mentioned and no tax evasion is being done in it as I have no access to the ITR Statements and other important documents of the said firm."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 09.01.2024 stating as under:
The information sought by the assessee is not mandatory to be provided and hereby rejected due to following reasons:-
As per Section 8 1(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 there is an exemption from Page 2 of 9 disclosure of such information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Since the information sought by the assessee has no relationship to any public activity or interest and it is not mandatory to disclose of such information.
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.01.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 06.02.2024, held as under.
"1. I have considered the RTI application dated 08.01.2024, order of CPIO/ITO ward-52(1), New Delhi dated 09.01.2024 rejecting the application, first appeal of the petitioner dated 12.01.2024, report and reply of the CPIO and the petitioner.
The information sought is personal information of the firm filed in the department in fiduciary capacity. The Income Tax Act, 1961 imposes certain restrictions on disclosure of information as per section 138 which is as under:
(1)(a) The Board or any other income-tax authority specified by it by a general or special order in this behalf may furnish or cause to be furnished to-
(i) any officer, authority or body performing any functions under any law relating to the imposition of any tax, duty or cess, or to dealings in foreign exchange as defined in clause (n) of section 2 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act. 1999 (42 of 1999); or
(ii) such officer, authority or body performing functions under any other law as the Central Government may, if in its opinion it is necessary so to do in the public interest, specify by notification in the Official Gazette in this behalf, any such information received or obtained by any income-tax authority in the performance of his functions under this Act, as may, in the opinion of the Board or other income-tax authority, be necessary for the purpose of enabling the officer, authority or body to perform his or its functions under that low.
(b) Where a person makes an application to the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the prescribed form48 for any information relating to any assessee received or obtained by any income-tax authority in the performance of his functions under this Act, the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that it is in the public interest so to Page 3 of 9 do, furnish or cause to be furnished the information asked for and his decision in this behalf shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court of law (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or any other law for the time being in force, the Central Government may, having regard to the practices and usages customary or any other relevant factors, by order notified in the Official Gazette, direct that no information or document shall be furnished or produced by a public servant in respect of such matters relating to such class of assessees or except to such authorities as may be specified in the order.
Recently, Hon'ble Delhi High Court [W.P.(C) 10193/2022 & CM APPLS. 29509/2022, 52778/2023 (CPIO/DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HQ EXEMPTION, NEW DELHI VS, Girish Mittal] has ordered on 22.01.2024 that provisions of Section 138 of Income tax Act, 1961, which lays down a specific procedure relating to disclosure of information relating to a third party under Income tax Act would override section 22 of RTI Act. Perusing through the provisions of the RTI Act and the Income Tax Act, Hon'ble High Court observed that the IT Act is a "special" Act governing all provisions and laws relating to income tax and super- tax in the country; while on the other hand, RTI Act is a "general Act which deals with the providing of information to citizens to enable them to realize their Right to Information". The Hon'ble HC has laid down in the said case that IT Act will prevail over the RTI Act.
Moreover, the petitioner, on one hand, is suggesting that the firm has indulged in tax evasion and on the other hand submitting that it is seeking its own information. The stand of the petitioner is self- contradictory. Even if the firm is engaged in tax evasion, to conduct inquiry to its logical conclusion is the duty of the department and the details of the inquiry and information obtained cannot be shared with the petitioner as it is personal information of the firm. The petitioner in the present RTI application has sought information regarding investigation of the alleged tax evasion by the firm M/s Sham Enterprises. The investigations of the tax evasion are primarily done under the purview of the office of the Director General of Income tax Investigation. Section 24 of the RTI Act prohibits disclosure of the kind of information sought by the petitioner from specified authorities. Directorate General of Income-tax (Investigation) has been mentioned at Serial No. 16 of the Second Schedule of RTI Act as "Intelligence and Security Organization Established by the Central Government". The disclosure of the information sought has no relationship to any public activity or interest. As such, I am satisfied that no larger public interest Page 4 of 9 justifies the disclosure of the information sought. In view of the above the CPIO has rightly rejected the RTI application by stating that the information sought by the assessee has no relationship to any public activity or interest and it is not mandatory to disclose of such information.
2. The petitioner could not make out any case with evidence which could lead the conclusion that there is satisfaction that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. This order is passed also by relying on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 titled as Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission & ors., passed an order wherein, it has been held as under:-
"The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show case notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from las employer and also details viz, movable and immovable properties and also the details of hius 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 (1) 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, shoe cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (1) 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 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 green 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 suck information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot clan those details as a matter of right. 14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal Page 5 of 9 information which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (1) of Section B(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."
3. In the light of above, the appeal of the petitioner stand disposed off as rejected."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. A written submission dated 15.05.2025 filed by the Appellant is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:
"BRIEF FACTS LEADING UPTO APPEAL:
1. That the Appellant Mr. Ram Prabhakar filed an RTI dated 20.12.2024 with the Directorate General of Income Tax(Intelligence and Criminal Investigation) where the information was denied by the CPIO Mr. Pavinder Singh. The Request was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 stating that it does not serve any public interest.
2. That the Appellant then filed a first appeal with FAA Mr. D.K. Srivastava, Additional commissioner of Income tax where the information was again denied under 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. The appellant then filed the present Second Appeal with the CIC to pass an order to provide The details if tax was being paid for the Partnership Firm M/s Sham Enterprises along with the details of tax evasion if any Grounds for the written statement:
1. That the Appellant filed a Tax Evasion Petition with the income tax department dated 26.12.2023 since the Appellant was getting Cheques as the share of profit from the account of Mr Sushil Prabhakar, managing partner of the firm M/s Sham Enterprises and not from the Account of the firm..
2. Hence the written statement with following detail:
Tax evasion due to giving cheque not from the account of the firm False Accounting to evade tax, May result in undisclosed income and benami transactions, Violates income tax act 1961 Misappropriation of Partnership funds Diversion or siphoning of firms funds, Hiding true profits or manipulating accounts, Breach of fiduciary duty under Indian Partnership Act 1932 Page 6 of 9 Violation of Trust with Partners Denial of right to the partners creating fraud and Illegal alteration of profit sharing Forgery or falsification of Accounts Fake enteries are made in books to justify or conceal payment, it could fall under IPC Section 420 (Cheating), 477A (Falsification of Accounts) Since the Appellant is a sleeping partner, the tax Evasion directly impacts the Appellant in the said scenario.
As per Section 276C, if a taxpayer willfully attempts to evade tax or under- report income with the amount exceeding Rs 25 lakh, it invites imprisonment for a term of at least six months up to seven years along with a fine. As the appellant is directly effected and Income tax evasion is in public interest hence public interest disclosure outweighs confidentiality in cases like evasion, fraud etc. The Managing partner on 09.09.2024 stated that the Bank account of the partnership firm are now closed. Mr. Sushil Prabhakar has not denied functioning and using the assets of the firm M/s Sham Enterprises when the accounts of the firm are closed. This may create Tax Evasion from the Account of the firm M/s Sham Enterprises and also GST evasion from the firm. It creates Issuing Fake invoices: Punishment upto 5 years imprisonment and fine Supplying goods without issuing invoices leads to tax Suppression Collecting GST but not depositing to Govt.
Falsification to maintain accounts.
If tax evasion is done in the name of the firm, other partners may be liable - especially those managing the business.
The firm is Still running as there was no information provide to the Appellant about closure of the functioning of the firm and the Shop 27 Prithviraj Market, Opp Khan Market, New Delhi from where the firm functioned is also still operational. The Assets of the firm are being used without the bank account being running. This creates a conflict of interest as a partner and financial wrong doing in the firm if proved right. Can also create GST fraud. PRAYER It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Information commissioner may graciously be cleared to allow this application and pass an interim order for:Page 7 of 9
1. Request for the direction to provide information as filed in RTI, first appeal and the Second Appeal and also if the Income tax is being paid for the financial years mentioned in the RTI- till date; and
2. Pass any order as deem fit and proper by this Hon'ble court in the present case."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
6. The following were present:-
Appellant: He, along with his son Shri Smarth Prabhakar present in person. Respondent: Not present.
7. The Appellant's representative while inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of their written submission contended that the information has been wrongly denied by the CPIO under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act ignoring the fact that Appellant is one of the partners of the partnership firm regarding which he has sought information. He further contended that since he already lodged a TEP (Tax Evasion Petition) against the defaulting partner, therefore, he has right to know the ITRs of the firm to corroborate evidence in his petition. He prayed the Commission to intervene in the matter.
8. The Respondent remained absent during hearing despite prior intimation.
Decision:
9. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Appellant and perusal of the records, observes that blanket denial of information by the Respondent under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act without seeking consent of the third party under Section 11 of the RTI Act, is not appropriate since the Appellant has sought information pertaining to a partnership firm in which he is also one of the partners. Under the very specific and special circumstances of the present case involving a dispute between the partners having a proper partnership deed and one of them alleging tax evasion, the disclosure of such information does not infringe Page 8 of 9 privacy on any third party's interest and instead appears to serve a larger public purpose.
10.In view of the above and considering the prayer of the appellant during hearing, the Appellant is advised to provide/submit a copy of his written submission along with copy of partnership deed before the Respondent Public Authority, within one week of the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of the same, the Respondent is directed to provide the revised updated reply, free of cost, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the documents from the Appellant.
11.FAA to ensure compliance of the directions.
12.Notwithstanding the above, the Commission admonished the conduct of the Respondent for remaining absent during prior intimation and cautions him to be careful in future, failing which action may be initiated against him as per the law. A copy of this order be placed by the FAA before the controlling officer of the present CPIO to take note of the observations.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Room No. 1501, 15th Floor, E-2 Block, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi - 110002 Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)