Central Information Commission
Aparna Ganguly vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 21 November, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CCITD/A/2022/638305
Aparna Ganguly ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o Pr. Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax (Exemption),
Delhi, RTI Cell, E-2 Block,
Civic Centre, New Delhi-110002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14/11/2022
Date of Decision : 14/11/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15/11/2021
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 07/02/2022
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.11.2021 seeking the following information:
1 "Please provide me the copies if entire IT Returns file by my husband that is above mentioned assessee for the last eight years that is from 2014 to till date.1
2 Please provide me details of Income from Salary as well as other Sources of Income for the last eight years with respect to above mentioned assesee alongwith details of such income from his employers during the last eight years since 2014.
3 Please provide me the details if tax paid by Shri Gaurav Ganguly and his relatives that is his father and sister with reference from the income from Sale of Property during the year 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 with respect to the transaction of Sale of Flat Number A-1/209, Sector-9,Mayur Apartment Sector-9 Rohini Delhi -110085 through Sale Deed Dated 23 July 2019 and Laundering of money (i.e. Laundering of Sale Proceeds thereof) as disclosed in various Bank accounts mentioned below.
1 Union Bank of India Rohini Sector - 9 Branch Account Number 520402010004293 2 Axis Bank Rohini Sector -9 Branch Account Number 919010070931257 3 Union Bank of India Rohini Sector-9 Branch Account Number 520402010004062. 4 Please provide the details of investments made and expenditures incurred by Shri Gaurav Ganguly during the last eight years 2014 to till date."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.02.2022. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Along with Advocate Biswajit present through intra-video conference. Respondent: Sandeep Sharma, ITO Ward 35(5) & CPIO present through intra- video conference.
The Rep. of the Appellant stated that they are aggrieved with the fact that reply along with relevant available information has not been provided till date. She further urged for the relief of information sought to be supplied in order to corroborate evidence in her DV case and interim maintenance order, which is sub-judice before Tis Hazar Court, Delhi.
The CPIO submitted that the instant RTI Application was received in their office on inter transfer basis on 22.11.2021 and the Appellant was replied on 2 30.03.2022 in compliance with FAA's order dated 24.03.2022, wherein the latter while disposing the First Appeal of the Appellant directed the CPIO to provide relevant information. He further added that in response, the gross total income of Appellant's husband has since been provided to the Appellant.
The Rep. of Appellant denied the receipt of the averred reply and in response to it, the CPIO at the behest of the Commission shared a dasti copy of his reply with the Appellant at the venue.
Decision:
At the outset, this bench has dealt with cases bearing the same factual matrix and the stance that has 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:
"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..."3
Further, in matters concerning the disputes of a husband and wife, the Commission is guided by a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Vijay Prakash vs. Union of India (W.P. (C) 803/2009) dated 01.07.2009 wherein the Court observed that in private disputes such as the present one between a husband and wife "...The basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption (from disclosure) enacted under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be lifted or disturbed.."
Similarly, in the matter of Madhumala B. R. vs. ACIT, Ward 3(3)(1), Bangalore based on the same facts in File No. CIC/CCITB/A/2021/609570, the attention of this bench was invited to the following cases filed by the Income Tax authorities in Bangalore with the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka against the orders of the Commission wherein "gross income" of the spouse was allowed to be disclosed citing the right of maintenance:
1. Jammula Padma Manjari in W.P. No. 18778 of 2017 (CIC/BS/A/2016/001440-BJ)
2. Gulsanober Bano in W.P. No. 34625 of 2019 (CIC/CCITB/A/2017/180340-BJ)
3. Neena Bhatnagar Mani in W.P. No. 7367 of 2020 (CIC/CCITB/A/2018/106268-BJ)
4. Chhavi Goel Nee Agarwal in W.P. No. 7281 of 2020 (CIC/CCITB/A/2018/120646-BJ)
5. Devyani Lakher in W.P. No. 7453 of 2020 (CIC/PNBNK/A/2018/104442)
6. Princy Amit Jain in W.P. No. 11233 of 2020 (CIC/CCITB/A/2018/164565).
Nonetheless, since the averred Court cases are reportedly under an interim stay by the Karnataka High Court and the details of the arguments or further orders are not available on record, this bench has accepted the bar on disclosure thus far only in the Madhumala case.
Per contra, in the recent past this bench has met with the continuing reliance placed by a staggering number of applicants on the decision dated 06.11.2020 of a coordinate bench of the Commission in the Rahmat Bano case, wherein the disclosure of the gross income was allowed to the estranged wife on the ground of sustenance and livelihood of the family. The said decision was premised on the judgments of two High Courts i.e 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 by Hon'ble MP High Court as well as Rajesh Ramachandra Kidile vs. Maharashtra SIC and Ors in W.P. No. 1766 of 2016 dated 22.10.2018 by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench). Thus, while making a reference to the ratio laid down in the Apex 4 Court judgement in the Girish Ramachandra (supra) case it was held as under in the Rahmat Bano case:
"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."
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 5 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.
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."
9. Taking into consideration the aforementioned analysis and the judgments of the Higher Courts, the Commission directs the respondent to inform the appellant about the generic details of the net taxable income/gross income of her husband held and available with the Public Authority for the period 2017- 2018, within a period of 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order. Emphasis Supplied
10. The details/copy of income tax returns and other personal information of third party need not to be disclosed to the appellant except as mentioned at para no. 9 above."
By taking into cognizance of the above observation, the Commission hereby appreciated the conduct of the CPIO in giving proper reply along with relevant permissible information to the Appellant in the spirit of RTI Act.
6It was further observed by the Commission that disclosure of complete information sought by the Appellant related to income details of her husband and also her father in- law is not permissible in view of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
Having observed as above, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7