Central Information Commission
Anubha Rishabh Aggarwal vs Pr. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 20 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/CCITD/A/2024/101731
Anubha Rishabh Aggarwal .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Income Tax Officer,
Ward No. 29(1), Room No. 1002,
E-Block, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic
Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi - 110002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15.05.2025
Date of Decision : 20.05.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.10.2023
CPIO replied on : 30.11.2023
First appeal filed on : 30.11.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 27.12.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.01.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.10.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:Page 1 of 6
"Gross Income / Net Taxable Income of my husband Mr. Rishabh Aggarwal son of Mr. R. P. Aggarwal - ΡΑΝ ΝΟ.ΑΑΚΡΑ5581E for the period A.Y.2013-2014 to Α.Υ. 2023 2024 and the details of Bank Accounts, periodical statements maintained by him.
Most respectfully, it is submitted as under:-
1) I am the daughter of Mr. Vinod Saraf (father) and Mrs. Punita Saraf (mother).
2) Mr. Rishabh Aggarwal is the son of Mr. Rajendra Prasad Aggarwal (father) and Mrs. Sunita Aggarwal (mother).
3) I got married to Mr.Rishabh Aggarwal on 08.03.2004 at New Delhi as per Hindu Rites and Customs.
4) Out of the wedlock, I have 2 children, one son aged 16 years and one daughter aged 15 years.
5) I and my children were thrown out of my matrimonial home at New Delhi on 29.03.2015 by my husband; and since then, I along with my children are residing at Mumbai with my parents.
6) Due to marital discord and cruelty, caused upon me, by my husband Mr. Rishabh Aggarwal, his parents and sister, I was constrained to file an Application bearing no. DV/7100212 of 2018 before Hon'ble Metropolitan Magistrate 71st Court at Bandra, Mumbai on 29.10.2018 u/s 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and the rules made thereunder seeking reliefs for protection order, residence order, monetary reliefs by way of maintenance of myself and my children, compensation and for interim relief etc.
7) During hearing, my husband Mr. Rishabh Aggarwal has filed a false Affidavit stating therein that he is unemployed since July 2018.
8) The Hon'ble Court by way of interim relief has passed an order dated 03.04.2023 directing Mr.Rishabh Aggarwal to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/-
per month (against my prayer for Rs.90,000/- approx.) for the maintenance of myself and my children w.e.f. 29.10.2018, i.e. the date of filing Application before the Hon'ble Court. The arrears of dues on Page 2 of 6 account of maintenance amount to Rs.9 lakhs approx. which has remained unpaid.
9) Mr.Rishabh Aggarwal is intentionally hiding and suppressing from the Hon'ble Court his true and correct income, source of income, expenditure and the details of bank accounts, periodical statements, etc. maintained by him.
10) An Affidavit on stamp paper and duly sworn / notarized in support of the above is enclosed.
11) In such a circumstance, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (Nagpur bench) has rightly observed as under in its judgment dated 22.10.2018 in the case of Rajesh Ramchandra Kidile v/s The Maharashtra State Information Commission Bench at Nagpur & Ors (Writ Petition No. 1766 of 2016) :-
"8.......... In a litigation, wherein the issue involved is of maintenance of wife, the information relating to salary details no longer remains confined to the category of personal information of the husband alone and it assumes the characteristic of personal information concerning both husband and wife, which is available with the husband and hence accessible by the wife."
12) Again, the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur Bench) has rightly observed as under in its judgment dated 15.05.2018 in WA No. 168/2015 Smt.Sunita Jain v/s Pawan Kumar Jain & Ors and in WA No.170/2015 Smt. Sunita Jain v/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors :-
"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."
13) A similar view was taken by the Central Information Commission, New Delhi in its order dated 06.11.2020 in the Case in Second Appeal No. CIC/CCITJ/A/2019/108747- Rahmat Bano v/s The CPIO, O/o the Income Tax Officer, Jodhpur, whereby the Commission directed the CPIO to inform to the wife the details of Income of her husband available with the public authority; even after giving due considerations to the observations made in the following judgments:-
Page 3 of 6a) Judgment dated 03.10.2012 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) 27734 of 2012, in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v/s Cen. Information Commr. & Ors.
b) Judgment dated 22.10.2018 of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (Nagpur bench) in the case of Rajesh Ramchandra Kidile v/s The Maharashtra State Information Commission Bench at Nagpur & Ors (Writ Petition No. 1766 of 2016).
c) Judgment dated 15.05.2018 of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur Bench) in WA No. 168/2015-Smt. Sunita Jain v/s Pawan Kumar Jain & Ors and in WA No.170/2015 Smt. Sunita Jain v/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.
14) The order dated 06.11.2020 passed by CIC, New Delhi in the Case in Second Appeal No. CIC/CCITJ/A/2019/108747- Rahmat Bano v/s The CPIO, O/o the Income Tax Officer, Jodhpur, is the latest in point and deserves recognition /acceptance by all Income Tax Authorities.
15) The ratio of the order passed by CIC, New Delhi in the case of Rahmat Bano is squarely applicable in my case, the facts of the case are identical / similar. Thus, in the case of me being wife seeking information of my husband as to his income, details of bank accounts, etc, particularly in view of the marital discord and information required by me in pursuance of a case of maintenance sub-judice before Hon'ble Metropolitan Magistrate 71 Court at Mumbai, it is no longer open for the husband i.e. Rishabh Aggarwal to seek exemption, nor for the department (i.e. CPIO) to grant exemption under the domain of "personal information", within the meaning and provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
16) In view of the above, I being the wife of Rishabh Aggarwal, am duly entitled to know the following details in respect of my husband:-
Gross Income / Net Taxable Income of my husband Mr. Rishabh Aggarwal son of Mr. R. P. Aggarwal - PAN ΝΟ.ΑΑKPA5581E for the period A.Y.2013-2014 to Α.Υ. 2023 2024 and the details of Bank Accounts, periodical statements maintained by him."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 30.11.2023 stating as under:
"After perusal of application under the Act, it has been found that the information of the person (s) which has been sought, are personal in nature. Accordingly, as per the provisions of section 11 of the Act, the Page 4 of 6 third party has been requested vide this office letter dated 01.11.2023 to give his/her ascent to share information. The third party, vide response dated 23.11.2023, has denied to share his/her personal information. Therefore, as per the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, the same could not be provided as the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third party."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.11.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 27.12.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
5. The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Aman Dhull, PIO-cum-Income Tax Inspector, attended the hearing in person.
6. The Appellant did not participate in the hearing.
7. The Respondent submitted that a suitable reply in terms of the provisions of RTI Act has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 30.11.2023.
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, is of opinion that the reply provided by the Respondent vide letter dated 30.11.2023 is not appropriate as the Appellant is only seeking information pertaining to the gross income and net income of her estranged husband i.e. Mr. Rishabh Aggarwal, which is strictly not a third- party information. Therefore, the Appellant is directed to establish and demonstrate that there is a maintenance case/matrimonial case pending before the judicial Court and for the said purpose, the Appellant shall submit complete litigation documents to the Respondent, within one week of receipt of this order.
9. On receipt of the same, the Respondent is directed to provide the "generic details of the net taxable income/gross income" of Appellant's Page 5 of 6 estranged husband for the period as mentioned in the RTI application, free of cost, within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the documents from the Appellant.
10. The First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance with the directions.
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, Office of the Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-28, Room No. 12051, E-2 Block, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi - 110002 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)