Central Information Commission
Ambika Thapar vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 16 July, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 305, 3rd Floor, CIC Bhavan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067, website:cic.gov.in
Appeal No.:-CIC/CCITA/A/2017/130826-BJ
Appellant : Mrs. Ambika Thapar,
Respondent : CPIO & DCIT (Circle-I)
Income Tax Department
Room No. 102, First Floor,
Taranjali Building, P. N. Marg,
Jamnagar - 361008
Date of Hearing : 13.07.2018
Date of Decision : 16.07.2018
Date of RTI application 18.11.2016
CPIO's response 17.06.2016
Date of the First Appeal 19.01.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 20.02.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 10.05.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 13 points regarding whether her husband was assessed to Income Tax, if yes, then the details in respect of his PAN alongwith the PAN allotment letter duly issued and allotted to him by the IT department, Details of the Jurisdictional AO/ Circle/ Range/ Ward of Assessment in respect of the IT returns filed by her husband for the period from FY 2004-05 to FY 2015-16, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 17.06.2016, denied disclosure of information as per Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 20.02.2017, concurred with the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mrs. Ambika Thapar alongwith Mr. Sameer Bhatia (Advocate) through VC;
Respondent: Mr. P. R. Meena, ACIT through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of her RTI application and stated that the information sought had not been provided and that the CPIO had misunderstood the contents of the RTI application. She contested the plea taken by the Respondent in respect of Section 138 of the IT Act, 1961 and Page 1 of 4 cited judgments contrary to the claims made by the Respondent. It was categorically argued that the FAA had also concurred with the reply of the CPIO without proper application of mind and that exemption u/s 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 was wrongly claimed by the Respondent. The Respondent submitted that he was unprepared to answer any of the queries raised by the Commission/Appellant as he was not well versed with the subject matter under consideration. The Commission took serious exception to the unpreparedness of the Respondent in RTI matters.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 12.07.2018, wherein at the outset the order of the FAA was contested on the ground that it was arbitrary, unreasonable and bad in law and deserved to be annulled on the footing that the information sought related to her husband and as on date there was no annulment of marriage hence the information ought to have been provided. A reference was also made to the decision of the Commission in Jyoti Sherawat vs. Home (General) Department, GNCTD (File No. CIC/AD/A/2012/003341 dated 07.01.2014) wherein it was held that every spouse has a right to information about the particulars of salary of other spouse especially for the purpose of maintenance. While referring to point no. 03, it was stated that the said information was required for the purpose of affecting a claim of maintenance of the applicant and the minor child deserted by the husband, hence the FAA failed in directing the CPIO to provide the desired information. A reference was also made to the decisions of the Commission in Smt. Madhulika Rastogi vs. Regional Passport Office, New Delhi, File No. CIC/AD/A/09/00074 dated 04.02.2009 and Smt. Laxmi Ramesh Sawekar vs. Department of Posts, Pune, Fiel No. CIC/LS/A/2011/002768 dated 27.01.2012 and Mrs. Pradnya Talwekar vs. CPIO, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal and Ors., Appeal No. CIC/SB/A/2016/900975-BJ dated 06.02.2017 wherein it was settled that Gross Taxable Income of Mr. Avinash Talwekar for the FY 2014-15 be disclosed to the Appellant within 10 days. It was also stated that the order of the FAA was required to be annulled since she was the legally wedded wife and could not be treated as third party within the strict sense of the term as the FAA was in complete error to have not directed the CPIO to provide the desired information in the matter and the decision of Commission in Juhi Jadli vs Income Tax Department, Noida (File No. CIC/RM/A/2012/00038/LS). The Appellant also submitted that u/s 138 of the IT Act, 1962 furnishing of information cannot be denied in so far as the proceedings before the Court were concerned and the term Court was capable of including within its ambit all quasi judicial tribunals working in the aid of constitution including the Commission. In support of its contention, the Appellant referred to CPIOs reply dated 17.06.2016 Para 2 wherein it was admitted that provisions of RTI Act could override the provisions of the IT Act, 1961. A reference was also made to Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act to submit that 'Facts admitted need not be proved'. The Appellant raised another ground that principles of natural justice were openly flouted and objections raised by her husband were only intimated by the FAA vide order dated 20.02.2017. It was also conveyed that Right to sustenance operated and emanated in Page 2 of 4 public interest and did not mean mere Right to survive, but a right to life filled with dignity and respect. Furthermore, it was explained that the FAA erred in holding that no public interest was demonstrated while ignoring the reason as to why the information was sought more specifically in relation to the claim of maintenance and that her husband alongwith his father and mother were already facing prosecution and the litigation was being conducted by the state since it was a state trial thereby leaving no room for a private litigation. It was further argued that the information sought ought to have been provided within 48 hours of its receipt since it concerned the life and liberty of an individual which operated in public stream and contained trappings of public interest. A prayer for annulment of FAAs order was also made on the ground that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the husband to harass her, delay the process of justice and to avoid payment of money necessary for maintenance. It was also submitted that the CPIO and the FAA deliberately and intentionally ignored the binding mandate of decisions relied upon by him and that as per CBDT Instruction dated 17.05.2016 and Section 19 (7) of the RTI Act, the orders of the Commission were binding. Allegations of biasness in the decision of the FAA were also raised for the reasons that the objections raised by her husband were not communicated to her. It was further submitted that while passing the decisions in the matter of Mr. Alok Sharma vs. CPIO and Asst. Director (RTI) SNCL and Ms. Subhashree Ghosh vs. Income Tax Department, the Information Commissioners were supposed to refer the matter to larger bench for consideration which was not done. Furthermore, it was submitted that whether wife could be considered as a third party in the strict sense of the term was never adjudicated in the aforesaid decisions. The Appellant also made a distinction of her case with the matter of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramachandra Deshpande vs. CIC, SLP Civil no.
27734/2012 by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble MP High Court in Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Sh. Pawan Kumar Jain WA 168/2015 dated 15.05.2018 wherein it was held that 'Wife is entitled to know husband's salary details thereby upholding the order passed by the Central Information Commission' and that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramachandra's was clearly distinguishable on the facts of the case. Thus, the Appellant prayed for directions in connection with disclosure of information, penalty on CPIO u/s 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and in case of any dissenting opinion of the Commission in terms of facts and law point, to refer the matter to a larger bench to decide as to "whether wife can be treated as a third party in strict sense of the expression called third party". It was also prayed to disclose Gross Total Income, Deductions Claimed and Total Income in respect of her husband/ copies of IT Returns for the last immediate preceding four financial years, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play in case the Commission was not in agreement with her submission.
However, the Commission was appalled to learn about the manner in which the hearings before it were handled by the Respondent Public Authority which indicated that there was complete negligence and laxity in the Public Page 3 of 4 Authority in dealing with the RTI matters. It was abundantly clear that such matters were being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflected disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. It was felt that the conduct of respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
DECISION Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties as also the unpreparedness of the Respondent to answer any of the queries raised by the Commission or to contest the submissions made by the Appellant, the Commission instructs the Pr. CIT, Jamnagar to depute an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary to enquire into this whole matter and submit its report to the Appellant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly (Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Copy to:
1. The Chairman, CBDT, Department of Revenue, M/o Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001
2. The Pr. CIT, Jamnagar, 401, Manik Centre, 4th Floor, Jawahar Road, Jamnagar- 361001, Gujarat Page 4 of 4