Central Information Commission
P. K. Jain vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 29 January, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CCABH/A/2019/638845
P K Jain ...अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी /Respondent
O/o. the Pr. Commissioner of
Income Tax-1, Bhopal
Madhya Pradesh
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 04-08-2018 FA : 19-11-2018 SA : 24-04-2019
CPIO : 30-08-2018 FAO : 14-12-2018 Hearing : 25-01-2021
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) O/o. the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. The appellant seeking information on five points, including, inter-alia:-
(i) Certified copies of income tax returns filed by Shri Omprakash Chourey, ITO-I (Itarsi) for last five years 2013-14 to 2017-18 and details of his PAN;
(ii) Certified copies of his immovable property return/movable property return filed by Shri Omprakash Chourey, ITO-I, Itarsi (MP), etc.
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 19.11.2018 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The first appellate authority was ordered on 14.12.2018 and disposed of his first appeal. He filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Page 1 of 4Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Biju John, CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 08.01.2021 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The appellant submitted that no information has been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 04.08.2018.
6. The respondent submitted that the information sought by the applicant was related to Shri O P Chourey, the then ITO-1 Itarsi (MP)(now retired), the third party. Hence, a notice u/ s. 11 of RTI Act, 2005 was sent to Shri Omprakash Chourey, the then ITO-I, Itarsi vide their office letter dated 08.08.2018 to submit his consent/submission in writing, whether the information sought may be disclosed to the applicant or otherwise. Shri Omprakash Chourey, the then ITO- 1, Itarsi vide letter dated 23.08.2018 had denied to disclose the information as sought for in the RTI application. The respondent further submitted that the FAA vide its order dated 14.12.2018 had observed that "After carefully considering the submissions made in the appeal, I partly agree with CPIO and partly with the appellant. The details of posting and pay scales etc. of a Government employee are information which are liable for putting in public domain but the details of Income Tax Returns, Service Book and properties are personal in nature. The CPIO is accordingly directed to share the details of posting of Shri O P Chourey since joining the department alongwith the basic pay details within 15 days of receipt of this order. Remaining details sought for by the appellant viz. ITR for last 5 years, copies of IPR, certified copies of service books and details of departmental enquires are personal in nature and therefore cannot be given to the appellant as the appellant has failed to justify the larger public interest involved in disclosing the information." The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 24.12.2018, they have complied with the directions of the First Appellate Authority.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information regarding Shri O P Chourey viz. copy of his service book, ITR for last five years, etc. which is personal information of third party and the same cannot be provided to the appellant as it is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The appellant has not established any larger public interest in the matter. It is noteworthy to mention that the income tax details, etc. is personal in nature exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. With regards to the applicability Page 2 of 4 of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 regarding non-disclosure of the information, this Commission refers to the judgment dated 03-10-2012 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 titled as Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission & ors., wherein, it has been held as under:-
"12. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the abovementioned information sought for qualifies to be "personal information" as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. 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."
10. In light of the factual matrix of the case and the legal principles enunciated by the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this Commission comes to the conclusion that the information of third party(s) cannot Page 3 of 4 be disclosed to the RTI applicant in the absence of any larger public interest in the matter. Nonetheless, the information related to details of posting of Shri O P Chourey since joining the department alongwith the basic pay details has already been provided to the appellant. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
11. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
12. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 25-01-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स#ािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
O/o. the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1
ITO (HQ) (Admn.-1), Aaykar Bhawan
48, Arera Hills, Hoshangabad Road
Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh-462011
2. Shri P K Jain
Page 4 of 4