Central Information Commission
Sahil Bablani vs Director General Of Income Tax (Inv.) ... on 14 December, 2018
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/CCITH/A/2017/144677-BJ +
CIC/DGITM/A/2017/159013-BJ
Mr. Sahil Bablani
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO
ITO, Ward - 14(2)
Office of the ITO, 6th Floor
B Block, I.T. Towers
A.C. Guards
Hyderabad - 500004
2. CPIO
ITO, Ward - 1(1)
Office of the ITO
"Jeevan Suman", LIC Building
2nd Floor, Cannought Place
Town Centre, N-5, Cidco
Jalgaon Road, Aurangabad - 431003
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13.12.2018
Date of Decision : 14.12.2018
ORDER
RTI 1: CIC/CCITH/A/2017/144677-BJ Date of RTI application 21.04.2017 CPIO's response 15.05.2017 Date of the First Appeal 31.05.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 07.06.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 30.06.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application dated 21.04.2017, sought information on 03 points regarding the certified copies of Income Tax Returns filed by his wife Dr. Deepa Mohan Sharma for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, sources of the Income declared and details of the deductions claimed by her.Page 1 of 6
The CPIO, vide its reply dated 15.05.2017, denied the disclosure of the information u/s 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 07.06.2017, upheld the decision of the CPIO.
RTI 2: CIC/DGITM/A/2017/159013-BJ Date of RTI application 29.05.2017 CPIO's response 08.06.2017 Date of the First Appeal 17.07.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 11.08.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 24.08.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application dated 29.05.2017, sought information on 03 points regarding the certified copies of Income Tax Returns filed by his Father-in-Law Shri Mohan Ravidutt Sharma for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2016-17, sources of Income declared and the details of the deductions claimed by him.
The CPIO, vide its reply dated 08.06.2017, denied the disclosure of the information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 11.08.2017, upheld the order of the CPIO and disposed the matter.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. G. Nanda Kumar, ITO, Ward 14 (2), Hyderabad and Mr. Neelabh Agnihotri, ITO, Aurangabad through VC;
Third Party Dr. Deepa Sharma, and Mr. Mohan Sharma, Hyderabad through VC;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Pradeep, Network Engineer NIC studio at Belapur confirmed the absence of the Appellant. In its reply, the Respondents at Hyderabad and Aurangabad re-iterated the reply of the CPIO/ FAA and stated that the information sought related to the IT returns of a Third Party and no larger public interest warranting disclosure of information was justified by the Appellant. A reference was also made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 and the decision of the Commission in Milap Choraria v. CBDT CIC/AT/A/2008/000628 dated 15.06.2009 in support of their contention. The Third Party (Dr. Deepa Sharma) stated she was the wife of the Appellant and that a matrimonial dispute pertaining to divorce and domestic violence was pending adjudication. Furthermore, it was stated that they had been living separately since 2014 and that the Appellant had been consistently harassing her and misusing RTI as a tool to seek information of her personal details. It was alleged that the Appellant was resorting to misusing the RTI mechanism by filing multiple applications in different matters seeking details of her birth certificate, passport, etc which were adjudicated earlier by the Commission. The Third Party (Shri Mohan Sharma) alleged that in order to harass him and his daughter, the Appellant was resorting to filing multiple frivolous litigations against them. It was also submitted that they had been Page 2 of 6 regularly filing their IT returns and that the Appellant could not substantiate/ prove/ corroborate his allegations at any stage.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed Page 3 of 6 by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
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."
In this context, the decision of the Commission in Milap Choraria v. CBDT CIC/AT/A/2008/000628 dated 15.06.2009 can be cited wherein it had been held as under:
"15. From the above discussion, it would appear that the Income Tax Returns have been rightly held to be 'personal information' exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of section 8(1) of RTI Act by the CPIO and the Appellate Authority; and the appellant herein has not been able to establish that a larger public interest would be served by disclosure of this information."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Naresh Kumar Trehan v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta in W.P.(C) 85/2010 & CM Nos.156/2010 & 5560/2011 dated 24.11.2014 had observed as under:
"25. Indisputably, Section 8(1)(j) of the Act would be applicable to the information pertaining to Dr Naresh Trehan (petitioner in W.P.(C) 88/2010) and the information contained in the income tax returns would be personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. However, the CIC directed disclosure of information of Dr Trehan also by concluding that income tax returns and information provided for assessment was in relation to a "public activity." In my view, this is wholly erroneous and unmerited. The act of filing returns with the department cannot be construed as public activity. The expression "public activity" would mean activities of a public nature and not necessarily act done in compliance of a statute. The expression "public activity" would denote Page 4 of 6 activity done for the public and/or in some manner available for participation by public or some section of public. There is no public activity involved in filing a return or an individual pursuing his assessment with the income tax authorities. In this view, the information relating to individual assessee could not be disclosed. Unless, the CIC held that the same was justified "in the larger public interest"
The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the decision of Shailesh Gandhi v. CIC and Ors WP 8753 of 2013 dated 06.05.2015 had held as under "16......the said contention is thoroughly misconceived as filing of Income Tax Returns can by no stretch of imagination be said to be a public activity, but is an obligation which a citizen owes to the State viz. to pay his taxes and since the said information is held by the Income Tax Department in a fiduciary capacity, the same cannot be directed to be revealed unless the prerequisites for the same are satisfied.
23...........Since the right to privacy has been recognised as a fundamental right to which a citizen is entitled to, therefore unless the conditions mentioned in Section 8 (1) (j) is satisfied, the information cannot be provided."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the matter of Vinubhai Haribhai Patel (Malavia) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Civil Application No. 7187 of 2014 dated 16.07.2015 had held as under:
"5. Now, turning to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the kind and nature of the information demanded by the petitioner clearly falls within the expression "personal information". The personal character of the information demanded in the nature of Income-tax Returns of the private parties to get disclosure about the payment of tax by them which was again in order to know about their status as agriculturists declared to be so by the authorities in the legal proceedings, could be indeed said to be personal. It was in the background of litigation between the petitioner and the said private persons relating to their property rights wherein the Will in favour of private parties was disputed and the disputes of civil nature were being agitated before the forum concerned and the court. This information being personal in nature, could not be claimed as a matter of right by the petitioner, rather they were clearly exempted information under Section 8(1)(j). The contention of larger public interest justifying the disclosure does not exist. In disclosing the said information asked for by the petitioner relating to the private parties, there was no element of public interest to be sub-served. The information was personal information relating to third parties. The attendant facts and circumstances and the litigation between the petitioner and those parties, instead indicated that the information was personal information which was asked for by the petitioner for his own personal interest and private purpose. Respondent No. 3-Central Information Commissioner was eminently justified in taking a view that there was no public interest present in the information claimed to be supplied, rightly denying the same by dismissing the appeal."
Moreover, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a recent matter of CPIO vs. Hemant Kumar Behera W.P.(C) 11658/2017 & CM No. 47383/2017 dated 27.08.2018 held as under:
Page 5 of 6"17. Mere apprehension that a third party has declared income, which is lower than the true income, cannot justify disclosure of Income Tax Returns in larger public interest."
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests. Moreover, similar issues where details of passport of his wife were sought by the Appellant were heard and adjudicated by the Commission in Appeal No. CIC/PASOF/A/2017/138891, CIC/PASOF/A/2017/139932 and CIC/PASOF/C/2017/143097 dated 13.03.2018. (In all these matters also the Appellant remained absent.) DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent and in the light of the decisions cited above, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
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: 14.12.2018
Page 6 of 6