Central Information Commission
Rajnish Kumar vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 14 August, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCABH/A/2023/628549
Rajnish Kumar .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Income Tax Officer, Tali Road,
Bilaunji Basti, Waidhan,
Singrauli, MP - 486886 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07.08.2024
Date of Decision : 13.08.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.05.2023
CPIO replied on : 01.06.2023
First appeal filed on : 02.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 08.06.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10.06.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.05.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. मै रजनीश कुमार S/O श्री नीरहू स हिं यादव इिंजीननयर BHEL CFP Rudrapur
2. महोदय मै आपको ये बताना चाहता हु की श्रीमती बबीता यादव मेरी पत्नी है । और हम लोगो के बीच मे बबवाद चल रहा है । बबीता ने मेरे खिलाफ ेक्शन 125 ीआरपी ी (गुजारा भत्ता) का के ककया है । जज मे उ ने कोर्ट के ामने एकफडेववर् (शपथ पत्र/ Page 1 of 8 affidavits) ददया है की उ के पा कोई आय का स्रोत नहीिं है और वो कही भी काम/नौकरी नहीिं करती है । जब की हमे मालुम है की वो नौकरी करती है और झूठ बोल रही है । और उ ने हमे desert (मेरा पररत्याग ककया है ) ककया है और उ ने मेरे ाथ क्रूरता की है जै े की उ ने हमारे उपर 498a का भी के ककया और उ ने हमारे कायाटलय मे कई सशकायत की जै े उ ने मेरे कायाटलय में दू री शादी का आरोप लगाया है जज मे उ ने कडी कायटवाही की मािंग की है और उ ने हमारे बेतन की आधा अपने अकाउिं र् में ट्रान् फर कर दे ने की मािंग की है । जज के कारण हमारे ववभाग मे ववभागीय जाच चल रही है ।
3. हम Income tax Department को आवश्यक जानकारी िोजने में क्षम बनाने के सलए श्रीमती बबीता यादव का वववरण ननम्नानु ार प्रस्तुत है :
Name: BABITA YADAV Father Name: RANJEET SINGH YADAV PAN CARD NO. ********62J Date of Birth: **.**.1985 Aadhar Card No.:*********9803 Current Employer: M/s BOMBAY INTELLIGENCE GORAKHPUR UP.
4. इ सलए हमे ननम्नसलखित जानकारी (Certified Copy) दे ने की कृपा करे जो की श्री मती बबीता यादव े िंबजन्धत है ।
(i) Copies of Income Tax Return of my wife Ms. Babita Yadav (PAN NO *********2J) for the financial year 2014-15 to 2016-17.
(ii) Copies of Form 26AS statement of my wife Ms. Babita Yadav (*******62J) for the financial year 2014-15 to 2016-17.
(iii) All TDS Deductor Name which associated to PAN No *******2J of Smt. Babita Yadav.
(iv) The Bank details of all banks (i.e. A/c Number, Bank name, IFSC Code and address) associated to PAN No *******62J of Smt. Babita Yadav.
(v) Gross Income and Taxable Income of the financial year 2014-15 to 2016-17 against PAN No *******62J.
(vi) Total deduction under section 80C, 80CCC and 80CCD (1) of the financial year 2014- 15 to 2016-17 against PAN No *******62J Page 2 of 8
5. यह मामला वैवादहक वववाद और रिरिाव के रूप में है , चुकी गुजारा भत्ता का मामला न्यायालय मे है , (जज मे उ ने झूठा affidavits ददया है और कहा है उ के पा कोई आय का श्रोत नहीिं है ।) तथा ववभागीय जािंच जो की हमारे कायाटलय बीएचईएल ीएफ़पी रुद्रपुर मे चल रहा है जज मे उ ने हमारे आधी ैलरी की मािंग की है कहा की वह िुद अपनी दे िभाल करने मे अ क्षम है तथा झूठी सशकायत की है की हमने दू री शादी की है अतः ही न्याय हो अतः मािंगी गई जानकारी व्यापक जनदहत में है ।
6 एक व्यापक जनदहत कक ी व्यजक्त की गोपनीयता के तहत छूर् को ओवरराइड (overrides) करता है और लोक ूचना अधधकारी ऐ ी ूचना के अनुरोध को अस्वीकार नहीिं कर कते अगर जीवन ाथी द्वारा दायर ककया गया है , ववशाल ावटजननक दहत द्वारा गोपनीयता की ुरक्षा को ओवरराइड (overridden) ककया गया है ।
7. उपरोक्त मािंगी गई जानकारी े गुजारा भत्ता की मात्रा (Quantum) का ही ननणटय दोनों जगह हो पाएगा और जज े छुपाई गई जानकारी का पता तो चलेगा ही ाथ ही ाथ जो कोर्ट को गुमराह ककया जा रहा है कोर्ट उ े भी अवगत होगा और ही गुजारा भत्ता ननणटय करने मे हायक होगा।
8. अतः उपरोक्त वववरण े हमने यह स द्ध ककया है की मािंगी गई जानकारी section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act के तहत ववल्कुल नहीिं आ रही है और न ही PF िाते की जानकारी third party information है ।
9. उपरोक्त बाते हम मािंननीय के ामने हम इ सलए रि रहे की माननीय को ननणटय लेने मे हायक हो और मय की बबाटदी न हो और अपीलकताट परे शान न हो।
10. चुकी बबीता Private firm मे कायटरत है और प्राइवेर् फमट ने हमे कोई भी जानकारी दे ने े मना ककया है। अतः चुकी वह नौकरी करती है वह employed है हम उपरोक्त जानकारी े proof कर कते है ।
11. बबीता ने हमारे खिलाफ section 125 CrPC (maintenance) का case ककया है जो की High Court जबलपुर MP मे pending है जज का details नीचे है । इ के को High Court Jabalpur के website पे भी दे िा जा कता है । जज े दो बाते स द्ध होती है Page 3 of 8
1. पहली बात - उ ने हमारे खिलाफ section 125 CRPC का के ककया है ।
2. दू री बात - वो हमारी पत्नी है ।
Details of case which pending in Jabalpur High Court Case Type - CRR (Criminal Revision) Case Number - 2222 Year - 2014 उपरोक्त जानकारी े आप case का details दे ि कते है The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 01.06.2023 stating as under:
"Point No.1 to 6 Information sought by the applicant relates to personal information of Smt. Babita Yadav, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, the application for providing such information is rejected under section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI act 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.06.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 08.06.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CPIO, appeared through video conference. The appellant inter alia submitted that he sought information regarding income Tax Return, 26AS statement and all TDS deductions etc. of his wife Ms. Babita Yadav and related issues. However, the respondent has arbitrarily denied the information by claiming exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. He referred the Case No. CIC/DGIPU/A/2019/139827 dated 15.04.2021 wherein similar information was sought wherein the directions were given to provide the gross income of the wife to the appellant (husband) The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information sought by the appellant pertained to personal information of Smt. Babita Yadav, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, the same was denied under section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI act 2005.
Decision:Page 4 of 8
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that the appellant sought copies of ITR form submitted by his wife Mrs. Babita Yadav and related information. The appellant in his RTI application, in second appeal and during the hearing stated that his maintenance case was pending in the Court, and for the purpose of establishing the compete facts he requires income proof of his wife. The respondent denied the information on the ground of third-party information and claimed exemption 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:
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."
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."Page 5 of 8
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 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 which takes the present case towards the category of exempted information.Page 6 of 8
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."
In light of the above observations, the Respondent should ascertain that the Appellant is the legally wedded husband of Mrs. Babita Yadav and there is a maintenance case/matrimonial case pending before the Court. For said purpose, the Appellant is directed to submit complete relevant documents before the Respondent Public Authority, within a week from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of the same and on being satisfied, the Respondent is directed to provide the "generic details of the net taxable income/gross income" of the estranged wife for the period as mentioned in the RTI application, free of cost, within three weeks from the date of receipt of the documents from the Appellant. The details/copy of income tax returns and other personal information of third party need not to be disclosed to the appellant.
The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
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 First Appellate Authority Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Central Revenue Building, Napier Town, Jabalpur- 482001 Page 7 of 8 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)