Central Information Commission
Sanjay Kumar vs Director General Of Income Tax ... on 20 January, 2023
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/DGITS/A/2021/632355
Sanjay Kumar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Income Tax
Officer, 5(2)(1), Noida, RTI
Cell, Fourth Floor, Aayakar
Bhavan-2D, Sector-24, Noida,
Uttar Pradesh-201301. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08/12/2022
Date of Decision : 17/01/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30/03/2021
CPIO replied on : 06/07/2021
First appeal filed on : 31/05/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 09/07/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.03.2021 with DIT (Systems), Delhi seeking the following information:
"Shri Manphool Singh (having PAN No.AZTPS0274Q & AZQPSO463A) and Mrs. Rajni Chauhan(having PAN No.AJNPC7525L) had taken Packing Credit loan from Punjab National Bank, Sector-27, Noida for their firm M/s R.V. International, B-65, Sector 67, Noida. Though I am not a beneficiary of the said loan and also not connected in any way with their business yet at 1 the request of my brother Shri Ajay Kumar (husband of Mrs. Rajni Chauhan), I mortgaged my flat D-428, Panchachuli Apartment, Sector- 61, Noida for their loan. They have now defaulted the loan and it has become NPA. Bank is taking action 13(4) of SARFAESI Act(copy enclosed), for auction of my flat(copy enclosed) to recover the loan amount (which as on date stands around Rs.2 crore) and also filed OA No.91/2020 at DRT Lucknow. My all efforts and request to Shri Manphool Singh, Mrs. Rajni Chauhan and Shri Ajay Kumar to repay the loan have failed. Sir, it is understood that Shri Manphool Singh and Mrs. Rajni Chauhan have invested good amount in Shares, high value FD and property. Under the circumstances, I request you to please supply me copies of their ITR for the Assessment year 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 of Shri Manphool Singh (having PAN No.AZTPS0274Q & AZQPSO463A) and Mrs. Rajni Chauhan(having PAN No. AJNPC7525L) and information about their FDs and investment in shares and enable me to effect the recovery of their loan and save my flat which is my only place of residence."
Having not received any response CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.05.2021.
Subsequently, the CPIO replied to the appellant on 06.07.2021 stating as under:-
"..... The RTI application was received in this office on 07/06/2021 on Transfer from the Office of Joint. CIT, Range-5(1),Noida. The applicant has sought third party information, relating to Sh. Manfool Singh S/o Rameshwar Singh, Assotech Contract India Ltd. F-27, 28, Sector-18 Noida, Gautambuddh Nagar regarding copies of ITR for A.Y. 2019-20 and 2020-21 and information of FD's and investment in shares made by Sh. Manfool Singh.
Being a third party information, a notice was sent to Sh. Sh. Manfool Singh S/o Rameshwar Singh on 09/06/2021 which was duly served upon him on 21/06/2021. No response was furnished by Sh. Manfool Singh within IO days of receipt of this notice as stipulated in section 11 (2) of the RTI Act. Therefore in the interest of natural justice one more notice as reminder was sent on 02/07/2021.
However, as per office records no consent of the third party has been received in this office till date.
3. Therefore, the information sought by you relating to third party cannot be provided in absence of the consent of the third party."2
In regard to his First Appeal, FAA's order dated 09.07.2021 stated that information has already been furnished the requisite information to the appellant.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra video-conference. Respondent: Neeraj Kumar, ITO Ward- 5(2)(1) & CPIO present through audio- conference.
The Appellant narrated the factual background of the instant matter on the following lines -
(i) ".....Shri Manphool Singh and Mrs. Rajni Chauhan, partners in RV International(the borrowing firm AAKFR4125M) are defaulting loan amounting to Rs.20086609/- (as on 23.01.2020) taken from Punjab National Bank, Sector- 27, Noida, (a Public Sector Bank) and the loan has become NPA.
(ii) The default amount outstanding against 12 Packing Credits advances was not converted into foreign currency and the importer client of the borrowing firm has not paid the money(sale proceeds) back into the M/s RV International loan account held by the lending bank. This implies that either the loan money has been misappropriated or the money earned from export has been taken directly from foreign client by the borrowers into their personal Accounts or in some other Account.
(iii) Shri Ajay Kumar, who happens to be my brother and husband of Mrs. Rajni Chauhan and at whose request I mortgaged my flat (my only place of residence), has left India in 2019 and joined a company M/s Sterling Oil Exploration & Energy Co Ltd., Lagos Nigeria.
(iv) The borrowers have been selling their properties and not repaying the loan and as such are willfully defaulting the loan.
(v) I have filed an SA No.741/2019 and the lending Bank has filed an OA No.91/2020 before DRT Lucknow and the above borrowers have not so far joined the Tribunal proceedings.
(vi) The information requisitioned if supplied, would serve the cause of recovery of the loan(public money of more than Rs.2 crore) and thus disclosure outweigh any possible harm to the interest of the third party....."3
He further expressed his dissatisfaction with the denial of information by the CPIO and stated that disclosure of such information will serve the larger public interest.
In response to Appellant's contention, the CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his latest written submission dated 05.12.2022, relevant extracts of which are as under-
"....3. In this case, the original RTI application dated 30.03.2021 has been filed by the applicant Sh. Sanjay Kumar before Directorate of Income Tax (System), Jhandewalan Extension, Delhi on 31.03.2021 who, in turn, transferred the application to CPIO(CPC & e-filing), Olo ADG(S)-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad.
This application was further transferred to Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida who finally transferred the application to this office (ITO, Ward-5(2)(1), Noida) and ITO, Ward- 5(3(1), Noida for furnishing information as per alphabetic jurisdiction. The jurisdiction over the assessee Sh. Manphool Singh lies with this office while the jurisdiction over the Rajni Chauhan lies with ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Noida.
4 The application of the applicant was received in this office on 07.06.2021. Since the applicant was seeking information about Sh. Manphool Singh, being the third party as per RTI Act, 2005, a letter was written to Sh. Manphool Singh on 09.06.2021 us 11(1) of the RTI Act requesting him to submit his objection, if any, within ten days from the receipt of the letter. As per speed post tracking the letter was delivered to the third party on 21.06.2021.
In the mean time, a letter was received from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Noida/ First Appellate Authority on 21.06.2021 requiring the undersigned to submit a comprehensive report regarding not supplying of information to the applicant, Vide this office letter dated 22.06.2021, the report was sent the First Appellate Authority informing him that the letter to the third party was delivered on 21.06.2021 in which he has been given 10 days time to respond and therefore the decision on supplying information can only be taken after expiry of 10 days from the receipt of the letter. However. no response was received in this office from the third party. Therefore, a reminder letter was sent to the third party on 02.07.2021. But no compliance was done to this letter also.
In light of the facts mentioned above the third party did not provided his consent for disclosing his personal information and also the provisions of Section 280 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, order in this case was passed by this office on 4 06.07.2021 with the remarks. Therefore, the information sought by you relating to the third party cannot be provided in absence of the consent of the third party.
In this regard, your kind attention is also drawn toward the provisions of Section 280 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which envisages as under:
"If a public servant [ furnishes any information or produces any document in contravention of the provisions of sub- section (2) of section 138), he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months, and shall also be liable to fine."
6. Thus regarding non-supplying of the information, it is also to submit that the applicant vide his application dated 30.03.2021 had sought information relating to Sh. Manphool Singh about his ITRs and investments which are completely personal, in nature and therefore the same was denied to be supplied. The applicant, alongwith the application, had enclosed the copy of notice us 13(2) dated 02.07.2019 issued to him by the lender bank i.e Punjab National Bank..."
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after scrutinizing the contents of RTI Applications arrives at the conclusion that the ITR of concerned third party contains the elements of his personal information and the disclosure of which would impinge on the privacy of the third person and therefore, it is hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act and to that extent denial of information by the CPIO is apt however, it should have been denied by quoting the relevant exemption provision of RTI Act. 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 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. 5 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..."
Further, the issue raised by the Appellant regarding attachment of his flat/ property on account of him being one of the guarantors to a third party who had defaulted in loan and it was declared NPA; being a legal dispute is outside the mandate of RTI.
In this regard, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied).6
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the above, no further action is warranted in the matter.
However, the Commission empathizes with the concern of the Appellant and advises him to pursue his grievance through proper channel.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7