Central Information Commission
Dr. Ravi Jindal vs Director Genral Of Income Tax (Inv.) ... on 9 June, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
केन्द्रीय सच
ू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DGIIC/A/2019/100803
Dr. Ravi Jindal ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, O/o the Income Tax Officer ...प्रनतिािी/Respondent
Sirmour.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 02-10-2018 FA : 19-11-2018 SA: 04-01-2019
CPIO : 29-10-2018 FAO : 28-11-2018 Hearing: 04-06-2020
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 Sirmour seeking following information:-
"a). Certified copies of 'Income Tax Returns' of his wife Dr Ratika D/o Sh. Ved Prakash Jindal from assessment year 2014-2015 onwards till date.
b). Certified copies of computation of income of above ITRs and related documents."
2. The CPIO responded on 29-10-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 19-11-2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 28-11- 2018. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Page 1 of 7Hearing:
3. The appellant, Dr. Ravi Jindal participated in the hearing through audio conferencing. Mr. Rajeev K, ITO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. At the outset, the appellant informed the Commission that Dr. Ratika is no longer his legally wedded wife, as he has now obtained a decree of divorce. He is also in receipt of the respondent's letter dated 14-12-2018 indicating the gross income and net taxable income of his erstwhile wife. However, the respondent did not provide the income tax returns and its computation thereof. In support of his contention for getting the income tax returns and its computation, he referred to the order dated 14-01-2015 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in FAO 369/1996 titled as Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma. He also referred to the CIC's order dated 03-02-2015 in CIC/SA/A/2014/000433 titled as Prashnsa Sharma v. Delhi Transco Ltd.
5. Further, the appellant submitted that Dr. Ratika had sworn an affidavit in the Court of Ld. JMIC, Patiala claiming that she had no source of income while on the other hand she is duly filing income tax returns and is also working in a hospital. Thus, her statement is at variance of the actual facts which is a criminal offence and has to be brought to the notice of the Ld. Court. Therefore, the CPIO should be directed to disclose the income tax returns and its computation thereof.
6. The respondent submitted that in compliance with the 1 st appellate authority's order dated 28-11-2018, they have already provided the gross income and net taxable income of Dr. Ratika vide letter dated 14-12-2018. However, they have claimed exemption u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 regarding non- disclosure of the Income Tax Returns of Dr. Ratika.
Decision:
7. This Commission takes note of the decree of divorce indicated by the appellant. Now, the legal issue to be decided herein is whether the details of the income tax returns of Dr. Ratika can be disclosed to the appellant at this stage under the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant has alleged about wrong information being furnished by Dr. Ratika before the Ld. JMIC, Patiala but he could not produce any credible evidence to rebut his presumption. Therefore, personal information of an individual cannot be sacrificed merely based on conjectures and surmises of the RTI applicant. Moreover, this Commission cannot assume the role of an adjudicating authority with regard to the veracity of the affidavit sworn before the Page 2 of 7 Ld. JMIC, Patiala. Hence, the contention put forth by the appellant for disclosure of the third party information is being outrightly rejected. No larger public interest has been established in the matter. The order dated 14-01-2015 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in FAO 369/1996 titled as Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma and the CIC's order dated 03-02-2015 in CIC/SA/A/2014/000433 titled as Prashnsa Sharma v. Delhi Transco Ltd are not applicable to the facts of the case, as these decisions do not speak about the disclosure of the income tax returns of third party. With regards to the applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 regarding non-disclosure of the Income Tax Returns, this Commission refers to the judgment dated 03-10-2012 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 titled as Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission & ors., wherein, it has been held as under:-
"12. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the abovementioned information sought for qualifies to be "personal information" as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. 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, Page 3 of 7 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.
8. Since filing of the Income Tax Returns by an individual with the Income Tax Department is not a public activity and rather it is in the nature of an obligation which a citizen owes to the State viz. to pay his taxes, this information cannot be disclosed to the appellant in the absence of any larger public interest relying on the legal principle enunciated in the judgment dated 11-06-2015 rendered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 8753 of 2013 titled as Shailesh Gandhi v. The Central Information Commission, wherein, it has been observed as follows:-
"16...The Petitioner possibly being aware of the said position has therefore sought to contend that filing of the Income Tax Returns is a public activity. I am afraid the said contention is thoroughly misconceived as filing of Income Tax Returns can be 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 pre-requisites for the same are satisfied."
9. 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 has 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 Page 4 of 7 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."
10. The division bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Harish Kumar v. Provost Marshall cum Appellate Authority & Anr, LPA No. 253/2012 dated 30-03-2012 while denying information in a matrimonial dispute has held as under:-
"11. A Division Bench of this Court in Paardarshita Public Welfare Foundation Vs. UOI AIR 2011 Del. 82, in the context of Section 8(1)(j) (supra) and relying upon Gobind Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975) 2 SCC 148, Rajagopal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 6 SCC 632 and Collector Vs. Canara Bank (2005) 1 SCC 496 has held right to privacy to be a sacrosanct facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 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. The full bench of this Court also in Secretary General, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal AIR 2010 Del. 159 has held that the conflict between the right to personal privacy and public interest in the disclosure of personal information is recognized by the legislature by incorporating Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. It was further 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 party and after considering his views."
11. This Commission also refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 & Ors. dated 13-11-2019 titled as CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, wherein, it was observed as follows:-
"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.Page 5 of 7
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."
12. In light of the aforesaid decisions and the legal principles enunciated therein, this Commission after considering the factual matrix of the case is of the opinion that in the absence of any larger public interest in the matter, the appellant is not entitled to seek details of the Income Tax Returns filed by Dr. Ratika which is exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
13. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
14. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta ( )
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयक्
ु त)
दिनांक / Date 04-06-2020
Authenticated true copy
(अभिप्रमाणित सत्यावपत प्रनत)
S. C. Sharma (एस. स . ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 6 of 7
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO,
O/o the Income Tax Officer, Nahan, Nodal CPIO,
RTI Cell, Near Delhi Gate, District Sirmour,
H.P. - 173001.
2. Dr. Ravi Jindal,
Page 7 of 7