Central Information Commission
C. Vikram Rao vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 4 August, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीयअपीलसंख्या/Second Appeal No.CIC/CCITH/A/2019/160777
Mr. C. Vikram Rao ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ...प्रनतवािी/Respondent
O/o. the Income Tax Officer, Ward
No. 4(5), Room No. 747, 7th Floor,
D-Block, IT Towers, AC Guards,
Hyderabad-500004
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 21-01-2019 FA : 20-06-2019 SA : 16-12-2019
CPIO : 13-06-2019 FAO : 07-08-2019 Hearing: 03-08-2021
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)O/o. the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 4(5), Hyderabad.The appellant seeking information is as under:-
1. "Whether Mr. Myadari Srinivas, Mrs. Myadari Lalitha, is an Income Tax Assesse?
2. If Mr. Myadari Srinivas is an Income Tax Assesse, has he been filing his Income Tax Returns on regular basis?
3. If Mrs. Myadari Lalitha is an Income Tax Assesse, has she been filing his Income Tax Returns on regular basis? Etc."
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 20.06.2019 requesting that the information should be Page 1 of 4 provided to him. The first appellate authority upholds CPIO's reply vide FAO dated 07.08.2019 and disposed of his first appeal. He filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, did not attend the hearing due to ill health.
4. The appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI Application and submitted that the desired information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 21.01.2019. On being asked by the Commission as to whose ITR details have been sought by the Appellant, the Appellant replied that he has sought ITR details of his in-laws.
5. Shri Vijay (Inspector of Income Tax) has sent a written letter vide which it has been informed that the Respondent is suffering from Dengue for last 1 week and last night he got discharged from hospital and there is some network issue at his residence.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the Appellant and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information regarding the ITR details of his in-laws and the same cannot be provided being third party information. Most of the queries as sought in the RTI Application are clarificatory in nature and under RTI Act; the CPIO is not expected to give clarifications and opinions based on the information sought. Therefore the concerned CPIO has rightly denied the information sought under section 8 (1)
(j) of the RTI Act. Therefore, the said denial is in order. In this regard, the Commission referred to the judgment of the 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 Page 2 of 4 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"
The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the decision of Shailesh Gandhi v. CIC and Ors WP 8753 of 2013 dated 06.05.2015 had held as under
"16......the said contention is thoroughly misconceived as filing of Income Tax Returns can by no stretch of imagination be said to be a public activity, but is an obligation which a citizen owes to the State viz. to pay his taxes and since the said information is held by the Income Tax Department in a fiduciary capacity, the same cannot be directed to be revealed unless the prerequisites for the same are satisfied.
23...........Since the right to privacy has been recognized as a fundamental right to which a citizen is entitled to, therefore unless the conditions mentioned in Section 8 (1) (j) is satisfied, the information cannot be provided."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the matter of Vinubhai Haribhai Patel (Malavia) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Civil Application No. 7187 of 2014 dated 16.07.2015 had held as under:
"5. Now, turning to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the kind and nature of the information demanded by the petitioner clearly falls within the expression "personal information". The personal character of the information demanded in the nature of Income-tax Returns of the private parties to get disclosure about the payment of tax by them which was again in order to know about their status as agriculturists declared to be so by the authorities in the legal proceedings, could be indeed said to be personal. It was in the background of litigation between the petitioner and the said private persons relating to their property rights wherein the Will in favour of private parties was disputed and the disputes of civil nature were being agitated before the forum concerned and the court. This information being personal in nature, could not be claimed as a matter of right by the petitioner, rather they were clearly exempted information under Section 8(1)(j). The contention of larger public interest justifying the disclosure does not exist. In disclosing the said information asked for by the petitioner relating to the private parties, there was no element of public interest to be sub-served. The information was personal information relating to third parties. The attendant facts and circumstances and the litigation between the petitioner and those parties, instead indicated that the information was personal information which was asked for by the petitioner for his own personal interest and private purpose. Respondent No. 3-Central Information Commissioner was eminently justified in taking a view that there was no public interest present in the information claimed to be supplied, rightly denying the same by dismissing the appeal."
6. In the light of the above said ratios, the Commission finds no further scope of intervention in the matter.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 3 of 48. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकुमारगुप्ता)
Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयुक्त)
निनां क / Date : 03-08-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अनिप्रमानितसत्यानपतप्रनत)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमाग ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
O/o. the Income Tax Officer,
Ward No. 4(5), Room No. 747,
7th Floor, D-Block, IT Towers,
AC Guards, Hyderabad-500004
2. Mr. C. Vikram Rao
Page 4 of 4