Central Information Commission
Chhavi Goel Nee Agarwal vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 22 October, 2019
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/CCITB/A/2018/120646-BJ
Ms. Chhavi Goel Nee Agarwal
....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & ITO
Office of the Director of Income Tax,
Centralized Processing Center,
48/1 & 48/2, Prestige Alpha,
Beratena Agrahara Electronic city (Post),
Hosur Road, Bangalore - 560500
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21.10.2019
Date of Decision : 22.10.2019
Date of RTI application 03.10.2017
CPIO's response 31.10.2017
Date of the First Appeal 20.11.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 11.12.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 02.04.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the Income Tax Returns filed by her husband Mr. Anurag Goel (PAN No. as mentioned in the RTI application).
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 31.10.2017 while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Despande (SLP No. 27734 of 2012) and Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005, stated that as per Section 11 of the Act, an opportunity was given to Mr. Anurag Goel vide their office letter dated 12.10.2017 who in turn vide his reply dated 24.10.2017, requested the Public Authority not to disclose any information relating to him as the Appellant had lodged false cases against him in Mumbai under Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and a complaint with police. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 11.12.2017, upheld the CPIOs response.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:Page 1 of 4
The following were present:
Appellant: Ms. Chhavi Goel Nee Agarwal along with Mr. Haresh Thakkar (Adv.) through VC; Respondent: Ms. Rajamathangi V., ITO & CPIO through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information sought by her had not been provided despite the decisions of the CIC in similarly placed matters. She through her representative cited a decision in the matter of Suruchi Sharma Vs. CPIO, ITO, Ward - 56(4), New Delhi, in Appeal No.:- CIC/CCITD/A/2017/175215-BJ dated 05.12.2018 and the Hon'ble HC of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) judgment in W.P. No. 10690/2017 dated 06.09.2017, etc., in support of her claim. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated the submissions of the CPIO/FAA as also the written submission filed by the Department. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 04.10.2019 wherein a reference was made to the decision of the Commission in Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/001440-BJ dated 07.04.2017 in the case of Smt. Jammula Padma Manjari vs. the CPIO and DCIT (HQ) (Admn), O/o the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka and Goa Region, Bengaluru directing the CPIO to provide the information requested for by one spouse to another. It was submitted that against the said order, a Writ Petition No. 18778/2017 (GM-RES) was filed before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru and the Court had passed an interim order dated 28.04.2017 directing issue of notice to the Respondents and in the meanwhile granted interim stay. It was ascertained from the Sr. Standing Council that the stay granted as per the interim order continued as on date and the case had not yet been posted for a hearing, till date. It was further informed that the Income Tax Department, on a similarly directed issue in the case of Smt. Gulsanober Bano, has filed Writ Petition in W.P. No. 34625/2019 in order to maintain consistency. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, vide Interim Order in Form III-A dated 13.08.2019 has granted stay on the operation of the order of the Commission in Appeal No. CIC/CCITB/A/2017/180340-BJ dated 12.04.2019. Furthermore, it was stated that the approval of the Higher Authority had been communicated to the Sr. Standing Counsel to file Writ Petition before the High Court of Karnataka against the CIC order in CIC/CCITB/A/2018/106268-BJ dated 18.06.2019 in the case of Smt. Neena Bhatnagar Mani.
At the outset, 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 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."
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 Page 2 of 4 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 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 W.A. No.170/2015 is also allowed and the impugned order passed in W.P. No.1647/2008 is set aside."
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.
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."Page 3 of 4
It was observed that the Respondent while denying information in their written submission sent to the Commission submitted that approval of the Higher Authority had been communicated to the Senior Standing Counsel to file Writ Petition before the High Court of Karnataka against the CIC order in CIC/CCITB/A/2018/106268-BJ dated 18.06.2019. The Commission observed that granting approval to the Standing Counsel to challenge another decision of the Commission before the High Court could not by any stretch of imagination be considered to be a valid ground for denying information in the instant matter but rather appeared to be against the spirit of the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the decision of Sunita Jain.
The Commission in the context of duty of CPIO referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the decisions cited above, the Commission while setting aside the decision of the CPIO / FAA instructs the Respondent (CPIO) to furnish the information to the Appellant respecting the decision of Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in Smt. Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain W.A. No. 168/2015 and Smt. Sunita Jain v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited W.A. No. 170/2015 dated 15.05.2018 in letter and spirit within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Appeal stands disposed with the above direction.
(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: 22.10.2019
Copy to:
1. Mr. R. K. Mishra, Director of Income Tax, Office of the Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Center, 48/1 & 48/2, Prestige Alpha, Beratena Agrahara Electronic city (Post), Hosur Road, Bangalore - 560500 Page 4 of 4