Central Information Commission
Manju Awasthy vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 20 February, 2023
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/2022/116349
Manju Awasthy ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
The CPIO,
O/o Income Tax Officer,
Ward-5(3)(1), RTI Cell, Room
No.413, 4th Floor, A-2D,
Sector-24, Noida, U.P.-201301. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14/02/2023
Date of Decision : 14/02/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on :01/12/2021
CPIO replied on :12/01/2022
First appeal filed on :16/02/2022
First Appellate Authority order :24/02/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated :28/03/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.12.2021 seeking the following information:1
"...I am going through legal disputes with my husband from May 2019 and after repeated avoidance of court case appearances and denial of court notices acceptance by my husband and in laws sent by me at my in-laws house, I have left with no option than to take RTI help and get my court proceedings working.
Currently I am severely physically injured due to the misdeed and ill-intentions of my husband and his family. I was always kept unaware by my husband about his all the income sources and Properties he owned. I was an independent working woman till my husband made me physically injured which is a permanent injury, and I being an honest and unselfish, non-greedy person never thought that hiding all the facts from me is a part of a conspiracy by my husband. I have gone through a lot of mental, physical and financial harassment and now trying to stand for myself and my 4 year old little one to get justice...
xxx
1. Copy of ITR filed by my husband Rajdeep Srivastava for year 2019-2020,2020- 2021,2021-2022
2. Copy of Salary slips of my husband Rajdeep Srivastava for year 2019, 2020, 2021
3. List of all the properties, policies and any other income source of my husband The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 12.01.2022 and denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.02.2022. FAA's order, dated 24.02.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Amit kumar Verma, ITO- 5(3)(1) & CPIO , Noida present through intra-video conference.
Third party: Rajdeep Srivastava present through intra-video conference.2
The Appellant at the outset narrated the factual background regarding the marital discord going on with her estranged husband which led to the filing of instant RTI Application seeking income details of her husband. However, she expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that information was initially denied by the CPIO. To a query from the Commission, the Appellant mentioned in a vague manner that multiple cases including that of maintenance, divorce and under Section 498 A of IPC are sub-judice before the Court of law.
The CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his written submission dated 09.02.2023 wherein he stated that against instant RTI Application information was denied to the Appellant being related to third party's personal information. However, in response to another RTI Application of the Appellant the numeric figure of the gross total income of Shri Rajdeep Srivastava (BGNPS6732B), husband of the appellant, has already been provided vide office order dated 05.04.2022 in view of order of Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner (CIC), New Delhi in a similar case [the case of Amrita Chatterjee Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal No. CIC/CCITB/A/2019/121513 Date of decision: 18/01/2021.
The third party objected regarding disclosure of his salary details to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the sole ground raised by the Appellant in the instant Appeal was non-receipt of desired information. Similarly, no substantial or relevant material has been placed on record by the Appellant suggesting that she has a case of maintenance pending in the family court against the said third party or she seeks to pursue a case on that issue. Pertinently so, the admission of Appellant during the hearing upon the Commission's instance, regarding pendency of various case before the Court of Law related to matrimonial dispute was rather feeble and lacked conviction.
Now, although the Commission has been ordering relief in cases where the applicant spouse alleges a marital discord and seeks information in pursuance of a case of pending case of maintenance, in the instant case, no such grounds of appeal has been put forth by the Appellant.3
Having observed as above, the Commission is unable to apply the same yardstick of other matrimonial dispute cases to the instant case for ordering any relief.
In the facts of the instant case then, the attention of the Appellant is 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" 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..." Emphasis Supplied.
Nonetheless, the reply of the CPIO dated 05.04.2022 indicating towards the numeric figure of the gross total income of husband of the appellant, by following the precedent of CIC Delhi in the case of Amrita Chatterjee vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal No. CIC/CCITB/A/2019/121513, is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds no scope of further relief to be add on in the matter.
However, in pursuance of clause 4 of hearing notice, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of his latest written submission along with enclosures free of cost with the 4 Appellant within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimated to the Commission.
With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5