Central Information Commission
Manisha Gopal vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 26 December, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCITM/A/2023/645790
Manisha Gopal .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Income Tax Officer (IT) - 2(3)(1),
Mumbai, Room No. 1727, 17th Floor,
Air India Building, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 400021 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.12.2024
Date of Decision : 26.12.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.04.2023
CPIO replied on : 10.05.2023
First appeal filed on : 09.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 06.07.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21.09.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 13.04.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. Copy of Mr. Utpal Gopal's Income Tax Returns for the past 5 (Five) years i.e., for 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22.Page 1 of 8
2. Details of both the PAN Cards bearing numbers ACGPG0660C and BBEPG8845B.
3. List of properties attached to Aadhar number 5364 2892 3652 and PAN Cards ACGPG0660C and BBEPG8845B.
4. Details of Mr. Utpal Gopal's current residential address in Delhi, along with details of any other state in India or elsewhere."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 10.05.2023 stating as under:
"In this regard, it is seen that as per section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information the department is not in obligation to give any citizen any information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and unless it has the larger public interest."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.06.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 06.07.2023, held as under.
"In this regard it is apt to mention the decision dated 01.07.2009 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P (c) 803/2009 titled as Vijay Prakash v. UOI & others wherein it has been clarified that in a private dispute between 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 unless the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in 'public interest'.
Another case relied on by the appellant is the Dr. Dheeraj Kapoor Vs Directorate of Health Services GNCTD, Delhi, bearing File no. CIC/SA/A/2014/000494, is also distinguishable on facts as there is no employee -employer relation between appellant and the Income Tax Department.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLPO No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 as under:-
"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 large public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."Page 2 of 8
In light of the provisions of sections mentioned in the RTI Act, 2005 and decision cited above, the information sought by the appellant cannot be provided being devoid of any public interest."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person along with Advocate Adab Singh Kapoor. Respondent: Not Present.
The hearing notice sent to the Respondent received back "undelivered" with the postal remarks "insufficient address".
Written submissions of the Appellant are taken on record and the Appellant informs that he has already served a copy of his written submissions to the Respondent and the relevant extracts are reproduced hereinbelow:
"That the instant written arguments are being filed on behalf of the Appellant in relation to the Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act in the captioned matter, filed on 21.09.2023.
2. That the current Second Appeal was filed well within the Limitation Period.
3. It is pertinent to mention herein that the Appellant and Mr. Utpal Gopal's marriage was solemnized on 27.02.1991 and a son namely Mr. Utkarsh Gopal was born from the said wedlock on 04.07.1997, who is residing with the Appellant presently at #131, Princess Park Apartments, Plot No. 33, Sector 6, Dwarka, New Delhi- 110075. Since June 2016 Mr. Utpal Gopal has not been living with the Appellant and their son, thereby effectively abandoning, and deserting the Appellant and their child.
4. That the Appellant herein filed the RTI application dated 13.04.2023 bearing registration number DGITI/R/E/23/00005 seeking the following information- i. Copy of Mr. Utpal Gopal's (husband of the Appellant) Income Tax Returns for the past 5 years from 2017 to 2022. ii. iii. iv. Details of both PAN Cards bearing numbers ACGPG0660C and BBEPG88458. List of properties attached to Aadhar number 53 64 2892 3652 and, PAN Cards ACGPG0660C and BBEPG8845B.
Page 3 of 8Details of Mr. Utpal Gopal's current residential address in Delhi along with details of any other address in India or elsewhere. 2 However, the same was disposed of vide Reply dated 10.05.2023 bearing no. ITO(IT)2(3)(1)/Right to Information/2023-24 by Sh. Sunil Kumar Dhaniya, CPIO, ITO (IT)2(3)(1), Mumbai and the aforesaid information was not provided to the Appellant on the ground that the information pertains to third person i.e. Mr. Utpal Gopal and that he refused to provide any such information to the Appellant vide email dated 09.05.2023.
5. That, thereafter, on 09.06.2023, the Appellant filed First Appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Range -2(3), Mumbai against the Reply dated 10.05.2023. However, the said First Appeal had also been rejected by the First Appellate Authority, i.e., Mr. Rajneesh Yadav, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Range-2(3), Mumbai vide Reply dated 06.07.2023 bearing no. CIT.(IT)- 2(3)/RTI Appeal/2023-234 stating that the information sought cannot be provided on the ground that the same is devoid of any public interest.
6. Therefore, the Second Appeal was filed by the Appellant on 21.09.2023. The Appellant hereby would like to bring the following points to the kind attention of this Hon'ble Court. The Appellant has requisite documentary and other evidence with respect to the same which can be duly produced as and when deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice. MULTIPLE AFFAIRS OF MR. UTPAL GOPAL AND MISREPRESENTATION AND FORGERY OF PUBLIC RECORDS
7. It is pertinent to note that Mr. Utpal Gopal has been involved with multiple women and the Appellant has evidence with regards to his marriage with another lady named Mrs. Krishna Gopal. In the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet filed in the litigations pending against Mr. Utpal Gopal, there are multiple instances and evidence depicting Mr. Utpal Gopal's other marriage with Mrs. Krishna Gopal and that he also has two sons named Pratik Gopal and Ankur Gopal from the said marriage. The names of these sons were also registered in the electoral roll of the Maharashtra assembly and even the name of Mrs. Krishna Gopal was registered in the electoral roll using the name of Mr. Utpal Gopal as her husband. Further, in the chargesheet filed with respect to FIR No. 0399/2018 filed by the Appellant against her husband; the investigating officer stated that Mrs. Krishna Gopal had shown Mr. Utpal Gopal as her husband in her ration card. Further, 3 charges were alsoframed against Mr. Page 4 of 8 Utpal Gopal under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860by the concerned Court after perusing birth certificate of Mr. Ankur Gopal, Aadhar card, marriage certificate, electricity bill, ration card, power of attorney seized by the investigating officer from Mrs. Krishna.
8. That further, on 26.06.2016, the Appellant found an Australian immigration form in which Mr. Utpal Gopal had mentioned about his marital status being "never being married". On further search the Appellant found anew PAN Card bearing no.BBEPG8845Bwhich showed the Mr. Utpal Gopal's photograph but strangely mentioned his name as "Utpal Lallan Gopal" and his father's name as "Lallan Hanuman Prasad Gopal". It is pertinent to mention that he had previously held another PAN card bearing numberACGPG0660C. The fact that Mr Utpal Gopal possesses two PAN cards has already been informed by the Appellant to the concerned income tax authorities as well, and she reserves her right to take further action in that regard at a subsequent stage. The Appellant also has grave apprehension that the other PAN card was being used for illegal and wrong purposes. It is also interesting to note that for the purpose of applying for a second PAN card, Mr. Utpal Gopal has used his address sat RNA Broadway Avenue, Mira Road, Mumbai and an electricity bill was also attached which was in joint name of Mr. Utpal Gopal and Mrs. Krishna Gopal. Further, Mr. Utpal Gopal also transferred a flat situated in Mira Road, Mumbai in the name of Mrs. Krishna Gopal vide a special power of attorney dated 18.03.2004and 18.08.2013.
9. Mr. Utpal Gopal has adulterous relationship with another Filipino woman namely, Ma. Bernadeth Villanneva. The Appellant, through bank statements of Mr. Utpal Gopal, got to know that he had been sending certain amount of money to that said lady living in Philippines. The Appellant is also annexing herewith copy of bank statements of Mr. Utpal Gopal showing transfer of funds to Ms. Ma. Bernadeth Villanneva.
10.These instances clearly indicate the fact that Mr. Utpal Gopal has not only committed fraud and cheating upon the appellant but also blatantly defrauded and misused the public authorities by giving false and fabricated details about himself in the immigration form in the Australian embassy and in Income Tax Department in a bid to defeat the legal rights of the Appellant and her son and hence has committed the offences of cheating and forging of public records.4 FALSIFICATION OF INCOME AND OTHER ASSETS BY MR. UTPAL GOPAL
11. It is relevant to note that in the legal proceedings, Mr. Utpal Gopal had furnished his ship travel history / List of Last Ports and Calls which reflects that Page 5 of 8 he has been sailing on the ship M T Fairchem Katana since at least 24.10.2021, which belies his false averment in his affidavit of income, assets and expenditures attested as on 21.10.2021 and filed before the Court to the effect that he is unemployed and earning NIL income. The Appellant, despite being the legally wedded wife of Mr. Utpal Gopal, is unaware of his income.
12. It is also submitted that Mr. Utpal Gopal has also suppressed the details of multiple accounts and assets held in his name to which the Appellant is rightly entitled to. The Appellant had also filed an application dated 04.03.2024 in CONT.CAS(C) No. 842 of 2022 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to place on record the list of assets of Mr. Utpal Gopal. The aforesaid application is also being annexed here which clearly depicts the conduct of Mr. Utpal Gopal in not disclosing the said assets before multiple courts.
13. The Appellant's access to the Mr. Utpal Gopal's income tax returns is vital for ensuring that he is not misrepresenting his financial status in court. It is essential for the Appellant to ascertain his actual income and assets to make informed decisions regarding her and her son's rights and entitlements. The denial of this information could potentially allow for financial misrepresentation, which would be unjust. LEGAL OBLIGATION FOR DISCLOSURE IN MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES
14. It is relevant to state here that in the case of Sunita Jain Vs Pawan Kumar Jain, 2018 SCC OnLine MP 373, the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court emphasized that a wife is entitled to know her husband's financial status to ensure fair maintenance proceedings. This principle underscores that financial transparency is crucial for justice in matrimonial matters.
15. Further, in the case of Rajesh Ramachandra Kidile v. Maharashtra SIC, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 3864, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that with respect to issues pertaining to maintenance of wife, the information relating to salary details no longer remains confined to the category of personal information concerning husband and wife.
16. It was also held in Sandeep Kumar vs. PIO, EPFO, Kanpur, CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/195272 that protection of privacy is overridden by larger public 5 5 interest in maintaining deserted wives in the concerned case, as provided in the provision to exception 8(1)(j).
17. It is respectfully submitted that the Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted to promote transparency and accountability in public authorities. While it is acknowledged that personal information is generally protected under Section 8(1)(j), it is essential to consider whether the disclosure serves a Page 6 of 8 larger public interest. In the case at hand, the information sought pertains directly to financial matters relevant to ongoing matrimonial disputes and maintenance claims.
18. In the case of Vijayanti, Hisar Vs. University Grants Commission, Delhi, CIC/SA/A/2015/001790, the Hon'ble CIC, Delhi explicitly laid down the importance of public interest in disclosure of personal information. It was held that while examining the element of larger public interest, a comparative examination of the two conflicting aspects has to be made by the public authority that has a duty to consider whether any public interest lies in disclosure or in non-disclosure. The CIC further held that a larger public interest is proved by the appellant therein to override non-disclosure of personal information under section 8(1)(j) as she is alleging that her husband is living in a bigamous relationship during subsistence of a valid marriage with her. It is crucial to note that similar factual circumstances are prevailing in this case.
19. The Appellant is hereby annexing a list of Documents along with this Written Arguments for the kind reference of this Hon'ble Court. The list contains multiple documents depicting Mr. Utpal Gopal's suppression of income and falsification of public records. The documents also depict that he has been involved with multiple women and has taken contradictory stand before different courts with an intention to mislead the concerned courts and vitiate the due course of justice. The Appellant craves liberty to refer and rely on these documents at the time of arguments of this appeal."
The representative of the Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that information sought by the Appellant has been wrongly denied to the Appellant by the Respondent. The representative of the Appellant apprised the Commission that her husband has committed an offence of bigamy and despite earning a handsome amount, he has not paid them maintenance. Further, as per various orders of the Commission and Hon'ble High Court of various states allowed such type of disclosure of information under the RTI Act.
Interim Decision:
From the perusal of the records, it has come to the attention of the Commission that the hearing notice sent to the Respondent returned Page 7 of 8 undelivered with the postal remarks "insufficient address". It seems that the hearing notice was not sent to the correct adfress of the Public Authority.
Neither the Respondent is present in the hearing nor there is a proper response of the PIO is on record. In the absence of these above, the Commission cannot adjudicate the issue properly. In view of the this, the matter is adjourned. The Registry of this Bench is directed to re-list the present matter within a period of four weeks and notice of hearing should be sent on the correct address of the Public Authority.
The Respondent is directed to file their written submissions covering all points of the RTI application as also the points raised in written submissions of the Appellant with a copy to the Appellant before the next date of hearing.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (IT), Range - 2-3, Mumbai, Room No. 1710, 17th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)