Central Information Commission
Harish Doulat Daryani vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 28 September, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपीलसं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/CCITM/A/2019/657833
Mr. Harish Doulat Daryani ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
O/O. The Income Tax Officer,
Ward No.-26(2)(6), RTO-26(2)(6) &
Room No.-415,4th Floor, Kautilya
Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G- Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra-
(East), Mumbai - 400051
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 01-09-2019 FA : 18-11-2019 SA : NIL
CPIO : 11-11-2019 FAO : 21-11-2019 Hearing: 24-09-2021
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), The Income Tax Officer, Mumbai, seeking information pertaining to his wife Meena Sunderdas Punjwani (known as Meena Harish Daryani a�er marriage) has filed multiple maintenance cases against me under Hindu Marriage Act Section 24, PWDVA 2005, CrPC 125 since 2016, in which she has claimed that she is not working anywhere and is a housewife. However, as per my information she is very well working with Grant Thornton India LLP in Mumbai since 7th Nov 2016. She is an income tax assesse in Mumbai under PAN No. ALIPP1793N through the RTI Act including, inter-alia:-
"1. Income tax return for Assessment Year 2017-18 Page 1 of 6
2. Income tax return for Assessment Year 2018-19
3. Income tax return for Assessment Year 2019-20."
2. The CPIO has invoked section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 and denied the requested information as the same is also exempted under section 8 of the RTI Act. Being aggrieved with the said reply, the appellant filed first appeal dated 18.11.2019 on the ground that 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. Therefore, the applicant is unsure why the required information is being denied to him as it is held by various High Courts that in a matrimonial litigation such information can no longer remain personal information of the husband or the wife. The FAA upheld the CPIO's reply and disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 21.11.2019.
3. The appellant has filed second appeal u/Section 19 (3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that First Appellate authority should disclose on what basis it assumed that divorce has been granted when Applicant stated that interim maintenance proceedings were going on. He further requested to impose a suitable fine on the First Appellate authority who has made this decision without bothering to understand basic facts of the case. Therefore the information sought should be provided to him.
Hearing:
4. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Manoj Kumar, CPIO/ITO attended the hearing through audio-call.
5. The respondent submitted their written submissions and the same has been taken on record.
6. The appellant submitted that the desired information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 01.09.2019.
7. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 11.11.2019, it has been informed that the appellant has sought third party information and the disclosure of the same has no relationship to any public activity, hence no larger public interest is involved. That as per the provisions of section 11 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the assessee regarding whom information was sought was requested to file her consent for furnishing the information. That Ms. Meena Harish Daryani vide her email dated 11.11.2019 has objected to give any information.
Page 2 of 6Decision:
8. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information regarding the Income Tax Return of his wife along with a copy of ITR for the A.Y. 207-18, 2018-2019 & 2019-20. The Commission further observes that the respondent has invoked section 11 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 and denied the information sought by stating that the wife of the appellant has refused to provide the said information to the appellant. The Commission notes that although the relevant information as sought cannot be provided under the provisions of the RTI Act, yet the Appellant is entitled to know the gross salary of his wife and the same should be provided to the Appellant. In this context, a reference shall be made on the following judgments:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. vide 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."
However, making a distinction with the said judgment, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Pawan Kumar Jain and others vide W.A. No. 168/2015 and Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others vide W.A. No. 170/2015 dated 15.05.2018, wherein the information seeker had sought the salary details of her husband from the employer and the Hon'ble Court has 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 GirishRamchandra Deshpande (supra) and therefore the law laid down by their Lordships in the case of GirishRamchandra Deshpande (supra) are not applicable in the present case.Page 3 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 RamachandraKidile vs. Maharashtra SIC and Ors in W.P. No. 1766 of 2016 dated 22.10.2018has 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 installments, 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 would make 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 GitishRamchandra Deshpande (supra), such an information could not be disclosed under the provisions of the RTI Act. This is all the more 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 difference matter, had the information been sought by the wife of the petition in order to support her contention in a litigation, which she has filed against her husband. In a litigation, wherein the issue involved is of maintenance of wife, the information relating to salary details no longer remains confined to the category of personal information of the husband alone and it assumes the characteristic of personal information concerning both husband and wife, which is available with the husband and hence accessible by the wife. But, in the present case, as stated earlier, the application has not been filed by the wife.Page 4 of 6
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 of 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.
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 eye of law." [Emphasis supplied]
9. In view of the ratio and analysis of the aforesaid judgments, the Commission directs the present CPIO to provide the details of gross salary of Appellant's wife for the said time-period within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. A copy of the same shall also be marked to the Commission.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 24-09-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस#यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 5 of 6
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
O/O. The Income Tax Officer,
Ward No.-26(2)(6), RTO-26(2)(6) & Room No.-415,
4th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G- Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra-(East), Mumbai - 400051
2. Harish Doulat Daryani Page 6 of 6