Central Information Commission
Souma Ghosh vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 25 September, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCITM/A/2024/615818
Souma Ghosh .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Income Tax Officer - 28(3)(1),
3rd Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi
Railway Station Complex,
Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400703 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.09.2025
Date of Decision : 25.09.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.02.2024
CPIO replied on : 10.04.2024
First appeal filed on : 19.03.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.03.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18.04.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.02.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"Information Requested: Under the RTI ACT, information is hereby being requested about the gross income filed by my husband, Sourish Ghosh, PAN No.: AIKPG5621M, S/o Tulsiprasad Ghosh, for the financial years 2021/22 and 2022/23.Page 1 of 9
Other relevant details: Sourish Ghosh presently is working as Sr. Manager Sales, Europe, Usage based Services at Mumbai & his employer being Tata Communications Ltd. having its registered office at VSB, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai:400001. His Kolkata residential address is A2 Green Park, P. Majumdar Road, Kolkata:700078. I was married to Sourish Ghosh on 27th. November, 2004 at Kolkata under Special Marriage Act, 1954, our boy child was born on 24th. August, 2005 and I am a housewife. Since the age of about five months of our said child, Sourish leaving me and our said child at my parental home subsequently went out of station without any information to me and since then me and our said child have been staying at my parental home. I have been taking care of our child as a single parent and he has been throughout a rank holder in his school alongwith many extra curricular achievements & he is now studying BTECH(ECE) in one of the NIRF top ranked Engineering Institute of India. In 2012/2013, Sourish filed a Divorce Petition and also filed a petition for custody of our child and both were filed at Alipore Civil Court under South 24 Parganas judicial district.. The petitions are presently numbered as 1 of 2013 and 25 of 2013 respectively and both the said petitions are sub judice. Presently, I am entitled for an alimony pendente lite amounting to Rs.14000 per month which my husband has defaulted on a regular basis. Tata Communications by its letter dated 20.11.23. addressed to me expressed their inability to provide me the pertinent salary details on ground of confidentiality."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 10.04.2024 stating as under:
"Section 3 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), spells out the right of a citizen of India to seek and get Information from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) & State Public Information Officer (SPIO). Sec 7(1) of the Act lays down that, on receipt of a request from an applicant, information shall be provided by the CPIO & SPIO. So, in effect, a citizen, who is an applicant, is entitled to information.
Sec 2 of the Act lays down the definition of the term "Information".
As per Sec 2, "Information" is defined:-
"to mean any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data Page 2 of 9 material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force".
On perusal of the extant application vis-a-vis with the provisions of the Act, it is seen that the details sought by the applicant is related to the third party, i.c. Shri Sourish Ghosh (PAN: AIKPG5621M). Therefore, as per the provisions of the Act, the consent/reply of third party u/s 11(1) of the RTI Act, was required in this case.
Subsequently, the applicant filed appeal before the Hon'ble First Appellate Authority on 19.03.2024. Thereafter, an order under section 19(6) of the RTI Act, 2005 was received from the Hon'ble First Appellate Authority on 22.03.2024. Thereafter, a notice u/s. 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 issued to the third party 'Shri Sourish Tulshi Ghosh' (PAN:
AIKPG5621M) through ITBA on 23.02.2024 wherein the third party was informed that this office intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof. Accordingly, opportunity was invited to the third party as per the provisions of section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed. The said notice was issued through ITBA common function. In response to the said notice, the third party 'Shri Sourish Tulshi Ghosh' (PAN: AIKPG5621M)' has replied through ITBA / e-filing portal wherein he has filed his objection in regard to disclosure of his income details. The relevant extract of the response filed by 'Shri Sourish Tulshi Ghosh' is mentioned as under:
"With reference to the above notice, I request you not to disclose my income to anybody as it is private and confidential information."
In view of the above, it is seen that the third party 'Shri Sourish Tulshi Ghosh' (PAN: AIKPG5621M)' has filed his objection in regard to disclosure of his income details. Therefore, the application of the assessce deserves to be rejected.
As per section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of individual unless CPIO or SPIO or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
Page 3 of 9In the instant case, the disclosure of the details regarding 'Shri Sourish Tulshi Ghosh' (PAN: AIKPG5621M)' may result in undue invasion to the privacy of the PAN holder and also the applicant has not made out any case that the larger public interest warrants or justifies the disclosure of the information related to a third person.
In the light of the above, the details sought by the applicant in regard to gross income details of a third party is hereby rejected on merit as the said third party has filed his objection in regard to disclosure of such information as requested in the application. Hence, the application is hereby rejected."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.03.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 22.03.2024, held as under:
"The appellant has further contended that information sought by him is required for court case for determination of alimony.
The contentions raised by the appellant are perused. On plain reading of the contentions of the appellant, it is seen that it is a matter of matrimonial dispute between the appellant and her husband and their case of divorce is sub judice. It is apparent that the information sought by the appellant does not contain any larger public interest and she has sought the information for court case. There is no court order in this case to share such information as per the details submitted by applicant.
In this regard, for the sake of brevity, Clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 is being reproduced here as under:-
"...(3) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person..."Page 4 of 9
In this connection, it is pertinent to mention that 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 had 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."
In the ratio of above decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is observed that facts in the present case indicate that the information was sought in relation to a third party and has no relationship to any public activity or interest and, therefore, the information sought seems to be exempted from disclosure of information as per the provisions of Section 8(1)(3) of the RTI Act-2005. No public interest was demonstrated to be served with the disclosure of information.
Further, the appellant in his appeal has submitted that the application was transferred on 13/02/2024 to ITO 28(3)(1), Mumbai but till date there has been no response from recipient PIO. Regarding the disposal of the request, reliance is hereby placed on section 7(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as:-
"...(2) If the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. fails to give decision on the request for information within the period specified under sub- section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have refused the request..."
In the case of appellant as the information pertains to her husband (being a third party) and without the consent of third party, the CPIO has not provided the requisite information by the appellant.
However, the provision of providing third party information is covered by section 11 of the RTI Act,2005 which is being reproduced as under-
Page 5 of 9"...11. (1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer. as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.
(2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) to a third party in respect of any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure...."
Keeping in view the facts of the case as discussed above, the concerned CPIO (ITO -28(3)(1), Mumbai) is hereby directed to issue notice as the provisions of the section 11(1) of the RTI Act,2005 thereby inviting the third party, Shri Sourish Ghosh, PAN No.:AIKPG5621M, S/o Tulsi prasad Ghosh, to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed and the CPIO is directed to consider this submission of the third party while taking a decision about disclosure of information.
So, the CPIO is hereby directed to take a decision on whether to share the information to applicant after giving an opportunity to the third party. CPIO is directed to act upon this case immediately."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
Page 6 of 9The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Koustav Dey, authorized representative of the Appellant present through Video-Conference.
Respondent: Shri Bhupinder Kumar Rai, Income Tax Officer & CPIO present through Video-Conference.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 18.04.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.
6. The authorized representative of the Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that till date information has not been provided to the Appellant by the Respondent and the same has been wrongly denied to her.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter-alia submitted that they have categorically informed the Appellant that the information sought by her is personal information of third party, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) & 11 of the RTI Act.
Decision:
8. In furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that this bench has dealt with cases bearing the factual matrix of a spouse seeking salary slip of another in pursuit of a matrimonial dispute and the stance that had been maintained by it so far is that the information sought for in the RTI Application pertains to the personal information of a third party and stands duly exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant(s) has been drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information"
envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC
794. The following was thus held:Page 7 of 9
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
9. In light of the above observations, the Respondent should ascertain that the Appellant is the legally wedded wife of Shri Sourish Ghosh (as mentioned in RTI application) and there is a maintenance case/matrimonial case pending before the judicial Court. For said purpose, the Appellant is directed to submit complete litigation documents before the Respondent Public Authority, within a week from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of the same, the Respondent is directed to provide the "generic details of the net taxable income/gross income" of the estranged husband for the period as available in their records, free of cost, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the documents from the Appellant.
10. The FAA is directed to ensure compliance with this order.
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 Page 8 of 9 Copy To:
The FAA, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 27(3), 4th Floor, Vashi Infotech Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400703 Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)