Central Information Commission
Bhupendrabhai Patel vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 18 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/CCITA/A/2024/112037
Bhupendrabhai Patel .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Income Tax Officer, Ward No.
1, 1st Floor, Aaykar Bhawan,
Gitanjali Chowkdi, Pij Road,
Nadiad - 387002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01.09.2025
Date of Decision : 17.09.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.08.2023
CPIO replied on : 14.09.2023
First appeal filed on : 20.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 12.10.2023
Compliance of FAA order : N.A.
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11.12.2023
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.08.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Request to providing information under R.T.I 2005 about M/s. Nadiad Wines, Nadiad.Page 1 of 6
To inform about the above matter that I am a partner of M/s. Nadiad Wines, which permanent Account Number is AAIPNxxxxx in which I applicant as a partner, I am requested to provide the balance sheet and profit and loss account of 10 years from 2014-2023 as only 2 copies of each page (10 years x 2 = 20 years) are required immediately.
We agree to pay whatever fee amount as per government rules."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 14.09.2023 stating as under:
"In this regard, it is to inform you that as per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 the requisite information as per your above referred application relates personal information and the disclosure of which has no relation to any public activity or interest."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 12.10.2023, held as under:
"Further, the CPIO and ITO, Ward-1, Nadiad has refused to information requested, quoting that as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the information relates to personal information and disclosure of which has no relation to any public activity or interest. Therefore, the appellant has preferred RTI appeal against the information provided by the CPIO.
I have considered the contents of the appellant in the light of provisions of RTI Act, 2005 and. The information sought by the applicant is found to be personal information of third party and the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. The CPIO has correctly denied to provide information. It is also pertinent to mention that the partners of the Nadiad wines have denied to give their consent for disclosure of information to the applicant. Further, the information of the assessees, available with the department, is maintained in fiduciary capacity which can be provided only if the competent Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. The information sought for is not found to be in public interest, therefore, the appeal of the appellant is rejected under section 8(j) and 8(e) of the RTI Act, 2005."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 2 of 6Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Dilip Kumar, Income Tax Officer-Ward-1 and CPIO present through Video-Conference.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 11.12.2023 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.
6. Written submissions dated 02.09.2025 of the Respondent is taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"n this connection, it is to submit that the applicant, Shri Bhupendrabhai Pursottamdas Patel, 205, Gunatitnagar- C, Besides Gurudwara, Sumul Dairy Road, Surat-395004 has filed RTI application before the CPIO i.e. ITO, Ward-1, Nadiad on 16/08/2023 asking to provide Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account of M/s. Nadiad Wines for 10 years since 2014 to 2023. Shri Bhupendrabhai Pursottamdas Patel filed the RTI application as a partner of the firm M/s. Nadiad Wines.
However, on perusal of column-9(a) of form 3CD filed by M/s.Nadiad Wines on e-filing portal alongwith ITR, the name of partners are mentioned as: (i) Satyaketu Vithalbhai Patel, (ii) Tulsi Vithalbhai Patel and (iii) Hemaben Vithalbhai Patel of M/s.Nadiad Wines PAN:
AAIFN5567B.
3. Since, assessee is not a partner, therefore the then ITO, Ward-1, Nadiad & CPIO, issued letter to all three partners, on 06.09.2023, requesting them to submit their consent/objection, if any, in respect of information asked by the applicant Shri Bhupendrabhai Pursottamdas Patel.
4. The above named partners have filed their objection on 28/09/2023 (copy enclosed). As the information sought by the applicant is found as third party information and accordingly, the ITO, Ward-1, Nadiad [CPIO], Page 3 of 6 has passed the order on 14/09/2023 [No.WD-1/ & CPIO/ND/RTI/BPP/23-
24] and has not provided the information sought by the applicant"
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they have categorically informed the Appellant that the information sought by him is personal information of third party, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Respondent reiterated that the Appellant is not the partner in the said firm as per their records.
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant in his second appeal is aggrieved that the Respondent has wrongly denied the information as per his RTI application. On the other hand, the CPIO in his response has categorically informed that the information sought by him is personal information of third-party, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has not disclosed any larger public interest for seeking third- party information.
9. The Commission agrees with the stand taken by the CPIO that the information sought by the Appellant relates to the personal information of third party, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
10. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx
(j) 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 Page 4 of 6 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;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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..."
11. In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply given and the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
Page 5 of 612. The Appellant is not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
13. No intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
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 Copy To:
The FAA, Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 2(1), Aayakar Bhavan Race Course Circle, Vadodara - 390007 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)