Central Information Commission
N. Prasad Reddy vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 2 January, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CBODT/A/2022/151280
N. Prasad Reddy ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Income Tax Department, ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Karnataka
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 02.08.2022 FA : 13.09.2022 SA : 02.11.2022
CPIO : 26.08.2022 FAO : 26.09.2022 Hearing : 27.12.2023
Date of Decision: 28.12.2023
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.08.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Please provide the certified copies of Trust Deed, F.C.R.A. registration Certificate, 12A registration certificate, 80G Registration Certification and 35AC Certificate of the above public Charitable trust.
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 26.08.2022denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.09.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false Page 1 of 8 and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 26.09.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 02.11.2022
5. The appellant's advocate Lokesh attended the hearing through Video conference and the respondent remained absent during the hearing despite notice.
6. The appellant's advocate Lokesh while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that he had sought certified copies of Trust Deed, F.C.R.A. registration Certificate, 12A registration certificate, 80G Registration Certification and 35AC Certificate of the above public Charitable trust and related issues. He submitted that all the documents submitted by the Charitable Trust to the Income Tax Department are the public documents and should be furnished to the appellant, so that the Charitable Trust don't misuse the IT exemptions.. He objected against the invocation of Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act by the CPIO in the matter and argued that he does not agree that the information sought can be denied on such grounds as he has not sought the records submitted by individual (third party). He added that the disclosing of the information sought would not harm the competitive position of a third party as mentioned under section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005. He further added that there is no Suo-Moto disclosure by the third party. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to furnish satisfactory information.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of records, observed that the respondent had denied the information under the provisions of the Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act after following procedure under the provisions of Section 11 (1) of the RTI Act, wherein the concerned third party i.e. Mrs. Maya Devi had declined consent. The Commission is satisfied with the response given by the CPIO to the Appellant and takes grave exception to the absence of CPIO during hearing without intimating any reasons thereof. Accordingly, CPIO is directed to provide Page 2 of 8 explanation for non-appearance before the Commission within 15 days of receipt of this order. In View of above, 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:
"13......The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right."
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."
In this context, the decision of the Commission in Milap Choraria v. CBDT CIC/AT/A/2008/000628 dated 15.06.2009 can be cited wherein it had been held as under:
"15. From the above discussion, it would appear that the Income Tax Returns have been rightly held to be 'personal information' exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of section 8(1) of RTI Act by the CPIO and the Appellate Page 3 of 8 Authority; and the appellant herein has not been able to establish that a larger public interest would be served by disclosure of this information."
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 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 Ret urns 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 sincethesaidinformation is held by the Income Tax Department in a fiduciary capa city, the same cannot be directed to be revealed unless the prerequisites for the same are satisfied.
Page 4 of 823...........Since the right to privacy has been recognised 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.
Page 5 of 8The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Municipal Corporation Delhi vs. Rajbir W.P.(C) 13219/2009 and CM 14393/2009, decided on 24.08.2017 had held as under:
"9..................Respondent has not provided any credible justification for seeking information regarding the personal assets of the MCD employee in question.
10. There can be no doubt that the information sought by respondent is personal information concerning an employee of MCD. Such information could be disclosed only if respondent could establish that disclosure of such information was justified by larger public interest. Even if the PIO was satisfied that disclosure of such information was justified, the PIO was required to follow the procedure given under Section 11 of the Act; that is, the PIO was required to give a notice to the concerned employee stating that he intends to disclose the information and invite the employee to make submissions on the question whether such information ought to be disclosed."
In Union of India v. R. Jayachandran WP (C) 3406/2012 dated 19.02.2014 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held that passport details, copies of birth certificate and copies of records of educational qualification are personal information, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individuals unless there was an overbearing public interest in favour of disclosure.
Furthermore, the division bench of the High Court of Delhi in the decision of Harish Kumar v. Provost Marshall cum Appellate Authority, LPA No. 253/2012 dated 30.03.2012 while denying information in a matrimonial dispute had held as under:
"10......................It was further held that when any personal information sought has no nexus with any public activity or interest, the same is not to be provided. Finding the information sought in that case to be even remotely having no relationship with any public activity or interest and rather being a direct invasion in private life of another, information was denied. ..............It was further Page 6 of 8 observed that personal information including tax returns, medical records etc. cannot be disclosed unless the bar against disclosure is lifted by establishing sufficient public interest in disclosure and disclosure even then can be made only after duly notifying the third parry and after considering his views. It was yet further held that the nature of restriction on right to privacy is of different order; in the case of private individuals, the degree of protection afforded is greater; in the case of public servants, the degree of protection can be lower, depending upon what is at stake; this is so because a public servant is expected to act for public good in the discharge of his duties and is accountable for them. This Court in Vijay Prakash Vs. UOI AIR 2010 Del 7 also, where information of an estranged wife's service record was sought, held that the transparency values have to be reconciled with legal interest protected by law, such as other fundamental rights, particularly the fundamental right to privacy."
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the decision Vijay Prakash Vs Union of India & Ors (LNIND 2009 DEL 865427) 01.07.2009, W.P (C) no. 803 of 2009 had observed the following in para 20:
"A bare consideration of the right of individuals, including public servants, to privacy would seem to suggest that privacy rights, by virtue of Section 8(1)(j) whenever asserted, would have to prevail. However, that is not always the case, since the public interest element, seeps through that provision. Thus when a member of the public requests information about a public servant, a distinction must be made between "official" information inherent to the position and those that are not, and therefore affect only his/her private life. This balancing task appears to be easy; but is in practice, not so, having regard to the dynamics inherent in the conflict."Page 7 of 8
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the appellant, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
8. The appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 28.12.2023
Authenticated true copy
Suman Bala
Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
O/o. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
DCIT/ACIT Exemptions & Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, CIR-1,
Income Tax Department,
Albuquerque House, Opposite Forum Mall,
Pandeshwara, Mangaluru,Karnataka-575001
2. N. Prasad Reddy
Page 8 of 8