Central Information Commission
Surya Narayana Murthy Yadla vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 9 March, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCITH/A/2024/631678
Surya Narayana Murthy Yadla .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o Income Tax Officer,
Ward 1, Deepti Towers,
Main Road, Kakinada - 533001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16.02.2026
Date of Decision : 06.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.04.2024
CPIO replied on : 17.04.2024
First appeal filed on : 22.04.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 06.05.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24.07.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.04.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"(1). I am Yadla Suryanarayana Murthy, live in Rajahmundry. My marriage was performed in April, 2018, as per Hindu customs and conventions, with my father's own expenses as my mother-in-law had CIC/CCITH/A/2024/631678 Page 1 of 8 informed me that her family was very poor and informed their inability to perform the marriage. As requested by her my father taken the responsibility and performed our marriage with his own expenses.
(2). My wife by name Nookaraju Ulli has foisted a criminal case under section 498A of I.P.C. and some other offences at Kirlampudi police station, East Godavari district by mentioning her name as Yadla Nookaraju @ Raji and also filed a case under Domestic Violence and both these were foisted against me, my father, my mother & my sister with false allegations and foisted a maintenance case [MC case) against Me and thereby by harassing us for the past Six years. She shown her name as Yadla Nookaraju @Raji instead of Nookaraju Ulli and she filed MC No.4/2020 and it is pending before the honorable Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Prathipadu village, East Godavari district. The DVC No.5/2020 and CC 113/2020 are pending on the file of the Honourable Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Prathipadu, East Godavari district.
(3). The prime allegation in those cases is that she had resigned her job and followed me to Mumbai and later shifted to Tamarada village in Kirlampudi mandal in the East Godavari district of Andhra Pradesh and residing with her mother. The fact remains is that she has been working in the Tech Mahindra Limited, Bangaluru. She has also deposed in the honourable Special Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court on 22nd November 2022 and wherein she deposed that she left her job in January, 2018 and she does not have any employment and no means to lead her life.
(4). The fact remains is that she has been doing the software job for the last 14 years. She was previously employed with the world's renounced IBM Ltd company and within no time of her resignation to that job she started working with Tech Mahindra Limited vide the employee Id No. NU00447674. Her official name is Nookaraju Ulli with her employee, aadhar card, pan card and passport. Her Aadhar card ID: ******** 9915, Her Registered Mobile Number with Income Tax department ********096. Her PAN card:- ********77D. But, she foisted the cases on the name Yadla Nookaraju alias Raji to mislead the court.
The Required Information:
(a). The attested true copies of the Gross Income for the assessment years 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022, 2022-
2023, 2023-2024 in order to defend the said matrimonial case. vide her CIC/CCITH/A/2024/631678 Page 2 of 8 Aadhar card No.********9915 and Her PAN card: *******77D and employee ID.*******7674 with her employer Tech Mahindra Limited, Bangalore with income tax department as the same required to submit to the honorable Special Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Prathipadu village, East Godavari district and also the honorable Judicial First Class Magistrate, Prathipadu village, East Godavari district."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 17.04.2024 stating as under:
"The application under RTI Act has been considered in the light of the information sought. The information sought by the applicant relates to 3rd party. This is exclusively personal information of the third party and thereby covered under exemption u/s. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, there is no public interest involved in the information sought by the applicant. Hence the request of the applicant is hereby rejected."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.04.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 06.05.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri Radha Krishan, Income Tax Officer/CPIO, appeared through video conference.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 24.07.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service. Thus, Regulation No. 10 of the Central Information Commission Management Regulations 2007 has not been complied with by the Appellant.
CIC/CCITH/A/2024/631678 Page 3 of 86. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia reiterated that the information sought relates to Income Tax Returns and financial records of a third-party, which are personal in nature. It was submitted that such information is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and that no larger public interest has been established by the Appellant to warrant disclosure.
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, notes that the Appellant has sought detailed financial information in connection with pending matrimonial disputes. The Commission finds that disclosure of copies of Income Tax Returns, PAN details, Aadhaar details, employee identification particulars, and other supporting financial documents would clearly invade the privacy of the concerned third party and cannot be permitted under the RTI Act.
8. However, the Commission also notes that limited disclosure of consolidated income figures, such as gross income and net taxable income, without revealing supporting documents, deductions, investments, PAN, Aadhaar number, bank details, or other personal identifiers, would not result in disproportionate invasion of privacy. Providing only broad income figures strikes a balance between the right to information and the right to privacy.
9. The Commission also observes that in cases involving matrimonial disputes and maintenance proceedings, courts have recognized the necessity of limited financial disclosure to enable fair adjudication of the rights and liabilities of the parties. At the same time, such disclosure cannot be extended to complete personal financial documents or detailed records, as the RTI Act does not permit blanket disclosure of third-party personal information.
10. In this case, the Appellant is the legally wedded husband of Ms. Nookaraju Ulli, whose information has been sought. The Commission also takes note of the fact that such financial information may be critical in matters related to matrimonial disputes, maintenance claims under Section 125 CrPC, where financial transparency is necessary for adjudication of rights and CIC/CCITH/A/2024/631678 Page 4 of 8 liabilities. It is an established principle in such proceedings that a spouse is entitled to know the financial status of the other.
11. The Commission referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. 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."
12. 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."CIC/CCITH/A/2024/631678 Page 5 of 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 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 CIC/CCITH/A/2024/631678 Page 6 of 8 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."
13. In light of the above observations, the Respondent should ascertain that the Appellant is the legally wedded husband of Ms. Nookaraju Ulli and there is a maintenance case/matrimonial case pending before the Court. For said purpose, the Appellant is directed to submit complete relevant documents related to his matrimonial dispute/maintenance case before the Respondent Public Authority, within a week from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of the same and on being satisfied, the Respondent is directed to provide the "generic details of the net taxable income/gross income" of the estranged wife for the period as mentioned in the RTI application as per the record available with them. The above directions are to be complied with by the Respondent within three weeks from the date of receipt of the documents from the Appellant. The other personal information of third party need not to be disclosed to the Appellant.
14. The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कु मार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूच ना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date CIC/CCITH/A/2024/631678 Page 7 of 8 Copy To:
The FAA, O/o Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kakinada Range, Deepti Towers, Main Road, Kakinada - 533001 CIC/CCITH/A/2024/631678 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)