Central Information Commission
Md. Imran Khan vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 16 July, 2020
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/2018/158037
Md. Imran Khan ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. The CPIO, O/o the Pr. Chief ... ितवादी /Respondents
Commissioner of Income Tax, ITO
(Tech) & (TPS-1), Aaykar
Bhawan, 48, Arerra Hills, Bhopal,
Madhya Pradesh.
2. The CPIO, O/o the Income Tax
Officer, Ward No. 2(1) Indore,
Godhra Hwy. Red Church Colony,
White Church Colony, District
Indore, Madhya Pradesh.
3. The CPIO, O/o the Income Tax
Officer, Ward No. 5(2) Indore,
Aaykar Bhawan, Opp. White
Church Colony, District Indore,
Madhya Pradesh.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 23.04.2018 FA : 07.07.2018 SA : 20.09.2018
CPIO : Not on record FAO : Not on record Hearing : 09.07.2020
Page 1 of 8
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. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, ITO (Tech) & (TPS-1), Aaykar Bhawan, 48, Arerra Hills, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. The appellant seeking information on six points, including, inter-alia:-
(i) Please provide information, How many times has Smt. Farheen Khan, D/o Md Farooque (PAN NO: CQZPP672M) submitted Income Tax Returns and TDS from 2014. Please provide attested copies related to said above with signature and stamp;
(ii) Please provide information, when did Smt, Farheen Khan, D/o Md Farooque, submit PAN application which is related as per office records. Please provide relevant attested copies with stamp;
(iii) Please provide information, did Smt, Farheen Khan, D/o Md Farooque, submit income tax return for year 2014-15 which is related to your office. Please provide attested copies relevant document, registers and others with stamps, etc.
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 07.07.2018 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The response of FAA is not on record. 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.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent no. 1, Shri Ranvijay Kumar, Income Tax Officer attended the hearing through audio-call.
Page 2 of 8The respondent no. 3, Shri S L Meena, CPIO attended the hearing through audio- call. Shri S S Murty, CPIO of Ward no. 2(5) attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The appellant submitted his written submissions dated 05.07.2020 and the same has been taken on record. The respondent no. 3 submitted their written submissions dated 06.07.2020 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The appellant submitted that he had filed RTI application dated 23.04.2018, which was addressed to the Central Public Information Officer, ITO 2(1) Indore, which was sent through online. The appellant further submitted that his RTI application was transferred from the CPIO, O/o The Income tax officer (Tech) & (TPS-1), & CPIO, O/o Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, (MP&CG), Bhopal to the CPIO, O/o the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore vide letter dated 24.04.2018. The appellant further submitted that the said RTI application was second time transferred from the CPIO & Income Tax Officer (Hq/TPS-1), O/o Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 2, Indore vide dated 02-05-2018. The appellant further stated that the same said RTI application was third time transferred from CPIO, Income Tax Officer (Hq/Admin), O/o Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Indore to the Income Tax Officer (CPIO)- 5(2), Indore dated 09-05-2018. The appellant stated that till date he has not received any response from the respondents. Even his first appeals was transferred from one FAA to another but no reply was given to him. The appellant further submitted that the respondent cannot refrain from disclosing the information on baseless pleas of public interest or invasion of privacy or information falls under category of third party when the issue involved is of serious nature as in the present case F.I.R. has been registered against the appellant. In support of his arguments, the appellant has referred various decisions of the Commission.
6. On query from the respondent with respect to the reply/information provided to the appellant on his RTI application dated 23.04.2018. The respondents, instead of explaining the factual position in the matter, has informed the Commission about Page 3 of 8 some other RTI application of the appellant. The respondents have failed to explain/present the case with respect to the RTI application dated 23.04.2018 of the appellant. On query from the CPIO, Ward 5(2), he has informed that Shri Kamal Solanki was the then CPIO and Shri Rajesh Jha was the then CPIO of Ward 2(5).
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that no reply/information has been provided to the appellant on his RTI application dated 23.04.2018. Further, there is nothing on record which shows that any reply/information has been provided to the appellant. This shows the serious lacuna on the part of the respondent public authority. The Commission further observed that the RTI application dated 23.04.2018 of the appellant has only been transferred from one place to another and no reply/information has been provided to him neither by the CPIO nor the FAA. This is the gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. In view of the above, the Commission directs Shri Kamal Solanki, the then CPIO, Ward 5(2), Shri Shyamlal Meena, CPIO, Ward 5(2), Shri Rajesh Jha, the then CPIO, Ward 2(5) and Shri S S Murty, CPIO, Ward 2(5) to show-cause in writing the reasons that as to why no penalty should be imposed on them for contravening the provisions of the RTI Act, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
8. The Commission further observes that the information sought by the appellant regarding income tax details of his wife, attested copies of TDS, etc. are personal information of third party, which cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. 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:
Page 4 of 814. 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."
However, making a distinction with the said judgment, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. in the matter of Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Pawan Kumar Jain and others W.A. No. 168/2015 and Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others W.A. No. 170/2015 dated 15.05.2018 had in a matter where the information seeker had sought the salary details of her husband from the employer held as under:
"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. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No.341/2008. Similarly, the W.A. No.170/2015 is also allowed and the impugned order passed in W.P. No.1647/2008 is set aside."
9. Moreover, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in the matter of Rajesh Ramachandra Kidile vs. Maharashtra SIC and Ors in W.P. No. 1766 of 2016 dated 22.10.2018 held as under:
"8. Perusal of this application shows that the salary slips for the period mentioned in the application have been sought for by the Advocate. As Page 5 of 8 rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the salary slips contain such details as deductions made from the salary, remittances made to the Bank by way of loan instalments, remittances made to the Income Tax Authority towards part payment of the Income Tax for the concerned month and other details relating to contributions made to Provident Fund, etc. It is here that the information contained in the salary slips as having the characteristic of personal nature. Any information which discloses, as for example, remittances made to the Income tax Department towards discharge of tax liability or to the Bank towards discharge of loan liability would constitute the personal information and would encroach upon the privacy of the person. Therefore as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Girish Ramachandra Deshpande (supra) such an information could not be disclosed under the provisions of the RTI Act. This is all the more so when the information seeker is a person who is totally stranger in blood or marital relationship to the person whose information he wants to lay his hands on. It would have been a different matter, had the information been sought by the wife of the petitioner in order to support her contention in a litigation, which she filed against her husband. In a litigation, where the issue involved is of maintenance of wife, the information relating to the salary details no longer remain confined to the category of personal information concerning both husband and wife, which is available with the husband hence accessible by the wife. But in the present case, as stated earlier, the application has not been filed by the wife.
9. Then, by the application filed under the provisions of the RTI Act, information regarding mere gross salary of the petitioner has not been sought and what have been sought are the details if the salary such as amounts relating to gross salary, take home salary and also all the deductions from the gross salary. It is such nature of the information sought Page 6 of 8 which takes the present case towards the category of exempted information.
10. All these aspects of the matter have not been considered by the authority below and, therefore, I find that its order is patently illegal, not sustainable in the eyes of law."
10. Taking into consideration the aforementioned analysis and the judgments of the Higher Courts, the Commission directs the respondent(s) to inform the appellant about the generic details of the net taxable income/gross income of his wife held and available with the Public Authority, within a period of 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order.
11. The details/copy of income tax returns and other personal information viz. PAN card details, TDS details, etc. (and other information sought in the RTI application) of third party need not to be disclosed to the appellant except as mentioned at para no. 10 above.
12. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
13. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कुमार गु ता)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ता
सूचना आयु त)
Information Commissioner (स त
दनांक / Date 09.07.2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स$ािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 7 of 8
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO,
O/o the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
ITO (Tech) & (TPS-1), RTI Cell, Ground Floor,
Aaykar Bhawan, 48, Arerra Hills, Bhopal,
Madhya Pradesh-462011.
2. The CPIO, O/o the Income Tax Officer,
Ward No. 2(1) Indore, ITO & CPIO, RTI Cell,
1, Godhra Hwy.Red Church Colony, White Church Colony, District Indore, Madhya Pradesh-452001.
3. The CPIO, O/o the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 5(2) Indore, ITO & CPIO, RTI Cell, Aaykar Bhawan, Opp. White Church Colony, District Indore, Madhya Pradesh-452001.
4. Md. Imran Khan, Page 8 of 8