Central Information Commission
Ankit Gupta vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 17 May, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CCITD/A/2017/604613-BJ
Mr. Ankit Gupta
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Income Tax Officer
Ward 60 (3), Office of the Income Tax Officer
Room No. 304 B, 3rd Floor, D Block
Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi - 110002
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15.05.2019
Date of Decision : 17.05.2019
Date of RTI application 05.05.2017
CPIO's response 07.06.2017
Date of the First Appeal 12.06.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 11.07.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the ITRs of Mr. Mithan Lal Aggarwal and Ms. Ruchi Aggarwal (PAN details mentioned in the RTI application) from 2005 till the date of filing of the RTI application and procedure to file TEP along with the format of the same.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 07.06.17 replied that the information sought by the Appellant was exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (d) and 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the Third Party out rightly denied to disclose any personal information. Other information relating to the procedure for filing of a TEP was provided. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 11.07.2017 concurred with the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:Page 1 of 6
Appellant: Mr. Ankit Gupta;
Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Bimbisariye, Asstt. CIT;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information sought by him had been wrongly denied by the Respondent under Section 8(1) (d) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. He further alleged that his wife, Ms. Ruchi Aggarwal D/o Mr. Mithan Lal Aggarwal had filed a false / bogus dowry harassment complaint, maintenance under HMA 24 and Criminal Breach of Trust etc.,, cases against him and his family members under relevant Sections of IPC and Hindu Marriage Act and that several other bogus FIRs had also been lodged against him. A case under Domestic Violence Act, filed by his wife was pending adjudication in the court of MM (Central), Tis Hazari Court. He drew the attention of the Commission to the decision of the High Court in W.P.(CRL) 1034/2017 and Crl. M.A. No. 8678/2018 (Stay) dated 23.08.2018 and the decision of Special Judge, Tis Hazari Court in Crl. Revision No. 74/2018 (Registration No. 550/2018) dated 01.12.2018 and the petitions made to the LG Delhi regarding his alleged torture and harassment by his in-laws. Furthermore, he desired this information to prove his innocence in the Courts of Law. He relied on his written submission also.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated NIL wherein while explaining the background of the case, it was submitted that the CPIO had wrongly denied information under Section 8(1) (d) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. In support of his contention, he referred to several decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 03.09.2007 in the matter of Anita Diwan vs. State of Delhi, decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Ram Gopal and Ors. Vs. State of U.P., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mehender Chawla and Ors. Vs. Union of India dated 05.12.2018 wherein it was observed that "criminal justice is closely associated with human rights. Whereas, on the one hand, it is to be ensured that no innocent person is convicted and thereby deprived of his liberty, it is of equal importance to ensure, on the other hand, that victims of crime get justice by punishing the offender"., also the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Naresh Kumar Trehan Vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta in W.P. (C) 85/2010, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Shailesh Gandhi Vs. CIC and Ors. and several decisions of the Commission in Appeal No. CIC/LS/A/2010/001044/DS, in Appeal No. CIC/DOREV/A/2017/179455-BJ and CIC/CCITM/A/2018/106126-BJ as also the decision of 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 in W.A. No. 168/2015 and in WA No. 170/2015 dated 15.05.2018, etc. etc. He further submitted that the information sought had to be disclosed as per the decision of the Commission in the case of Prashansa Sharma v Delhi Transco Ltd. No. CIC/SA/A/2014/000433 decided on 03.02.2015 relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Kusum Sharma versus Mahender Kumar Sharma wherein it was held that the information about assets, income and investments of spouses was no more private or personal information as against spouses, even if that information could be personal or private information as against any person other than spouse. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that the information sought was exempted under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 being personal information of the Third Parties.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information Page 2 of 6 relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data 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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
In this context, the decision of the Commission in Milap Choraria v. CBDT CIC/AT/A/2008/000628 dated 15.06.2009 can be cited wherein it had been held as under:
Page 3 of 6"15. From the above discussion, it would appear that the Income Tax Returns have been rightly held to be 'personal information' exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of section 8(1) of RTI Act by the CPIO and the Appellate Authority; and the appellant herein has not been able to establish that a larger public interest would be served by disclosure of this information."
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."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Naresh Kumar Trehan v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta in W.P.(C) 85/2010 & CM Nos.156/2010 & 5560/2011 dated 24.11.2014 had observed as under:
"25. Indisputably, Section 8(1)(j) of the Act would be applicable to the information pertaining to Dr Naresh Trehan (petitioner in W.P.(C) 88/2010) and the information contained in the income tax returns would be personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. However, the CIC directed disclosure of information of Dr Trehan also by concluding that income tax returns and information provided for assessment was in relation to a "public activity." In my view, this is wholly erroneous and unmerited. The act of filing returns with the department cannot be construed as public activity. The expression "public activity" would mean activities of a public nature and not necessarily act done in compliance of a statute. The expression "public activity" would denote activity done for the public and/or in some manner available for participation by public or some section of public. There is no public activity involved in filing a return or an individual pursuing his assessment with the income tax authorities. In this view, the information relating to individual assessee could not be disclosed. Unless, the CIC held that the same was justified "in the larger public interest"
However, making a distinction with the said judgment of the Apex Court in G R Deshpande's matter, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. in 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 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.Page 4 of 6
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."
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."
In the context of similar disputes pending before various Courts, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Union of India vs. Shiv Narain, WP(C) 7204/2016 dated 27.03.2019 wherein it was held as under:
"2. The respondent herein sought information from the petitioner on the following two issues:- "1. Whether the report vide letter no. RSVY/CE/CE & PM/55(1) 892 dated 12.02.2013 addressed to Inspector of police, CBI, ACB, Patna by Shri D.S. Kapur CE cum PM RSVY project Zone, CPWD, Patna in connection with the subject referred above was submitted by the CBI before the sanctioning Authority before grant of prosecution sanction. 2. The certified copy of the note sheet of the above mentioned case from the beginning to the issue of prosecution sanction may also be given for which I am ready to pay the requisite fee."
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has fairly drawn my attention to an order dated February 12, 2019 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1632/2019, which is an appeal arising from the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 2272/2013 dated September 16, 2014 and the Division Bench in LPA 471/2015 dated August 17, 2015, wherein information also includes copy of the note sheet for Page 5 of 6 processing the decision to refer the said case to Anti Corruption Branch of CBI for investigation. In the said case, the said information was denied to the petitioner Ashok Kumar Sharma.
5. The Supreme Court in its order dated February 12, 2019 has held as under:-
4. The dispute remains about document Nos.1, 3 and 4 as they were not supplied considering the provisions of Section 8(i)(h) of the Right to Information Act which prohibits disclosure of information connected with ongoing investigations and prosecutions and it was opined that it was source information that has triggered the anti-
corruption proceedings and nothing should be done which affects the proceedings or which compromises the position of the sources of information. 5. In view of the aforesaid reasons employed by the Information Commissioner, we are of the opinion that there was justification in refusing to supply the aforesaid documents. However, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that during the course of trial, if the trial Court feels it appropriate and if a prayer is made, the documents may be called by Court in accordance with law.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent herein shall have the liberty to seek the document, which he has sought under the RTI Act from the learned Trial Court, in terms of the order of the Supreme Court. Suffice it would be to state that it is for the respondent herein to seek appropriate orders from the learned Trial Court. In view of the order of the Supreme Court, the order of the CIC dated February 29, 2016 is set aside, the writ petition is allowed."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the decisions cited above, the Commission directs the Respondent (CPIO) to re-examine the response of the Public Authority in the light of the aforesaid judgments and provide the total remuneration of his wife (Ms. Ruchi Aggarwal) to the Appellant respecting the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in Smt. Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain W.A. No. 168/2015 and Smt. Sunita Jain v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited W.A. No. 170/2015 dated 15.05.2018 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 17.05.2019
Page 6 of 6