Central Information Commission
Mr.Anil Bairwal vs Cbdt on 10 May, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067
Tel: +91-11-26105682
File No.CIC/DS/A/2011/004234/RM
Appellant: Mr Anil Bairwal
Public Authority: Income Tax Department
Date of Hearing: 3.5.2012
Date of decision: 10.5.2012
Heard on 3.5.2012.
Appellant is present. Along with him is Mr A.K.Aneja, Advocate.
The Public Authority is represented by Mr B.S.Negi, CPIO and Mr P.Roy
Chaudhri, Advocate.
The above parties were heard and records perused.
FACTS
1
It is noticed that the appellant vide his RTI request dated 15.5.2010 seeking information regarding details of IT returns filed by two MPs.
2. The CPIO vide his letter dated 9.6.2010, withheld the information u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The Appellant Authority vide their order dated 10.8.2010 held that certain procedural lapses have occurred at the level of CPIO, ITO Ward 47(1) and these should be attended to.
3. Not satisfied with the response, the Appellant filed the present appeal.
4. The appellant made the following submissions in support of his stand:
i. Disclosure of Income Tax returns was needed in the larger public interest. Politicians while contesting elections are in any case required to submit certain details relating to their assets and total income and also as to whether Income Tax returns have been filed by them. When these details are already provided through an affidavit with their nomination forms, where is the question of the IT returns not being disclosed? The appellant cited the Supreme Court judgement (Common Cause Vs Union of India AIR/1996, SC/3081). ii. Referring to the Preamble to the RTI Act wherein the need to contain corruption has been mentioned the appellant felt that it was necessary to make public IT details of politicians in order to assess whether the accretion to their wealth since the time they contested elections, was justified or not. 6.
iii. Income Tax returns, filed voluntarily or in response to the directions of the Assessing Officer, are public documents u/s 74 of the Evidence Act.
iv. Section 8(1)(j) mentions that information which cannot be denied to the Parliament, shall not be denied to any person and as such, IT returns form a part of public document to which Parliament can have access.
v. CIC order dt June 3, 2011 (CIC/WB/A/2010/000079 & 639) directed the Rajya Sabha Secretariat to disclose the copies of the Form of Pecuniary Interest of Rajya Sabha MPs, which contains details of 2 their financial and business interests along with any other remunerative activity of any kind.
vi. Even the Election Commission has been sending copies of the asset declaration made by the politicians while contesting elections, to the CBDT with the request that this should be verified with their returns. But this has not been done.
vii. In the US and UK, the Congressmen/parliamentarians voluntarily disclose their Income Tax returns.
5. In view of the above, the appellant felt that IT returns of politicians should be disclosed.
6. Mr P.Roy Chaudhri, counsel for the Appellant Authority, submitted as follows:
i. Disclosure of IT returns would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy in terms of Section 8(i)(j).
ii. Parliament cannot call for Income Tax returns of an individual as contended by the Appellant.
iii. The orders of CIC cannot be relied upon because there are contradictory decisions by the ICs on these matters. The case of Rakesh Gupta not applicable to the present case as the order has been stayed by the Delhi High Court.
iv. Common Cause case relied upon by the Appellant is not applicable in this case as it does not discuss disclosure of IT returns of an individual.
v. Even if overriding public interest is proved, the Commission cannot order disclosure of IT returns without taking the views of the third party as per Section 11 of the RTI Act. This is in consonance with the case of Suhas Chakma Vs CIC.
vi. The information is being held in fiduciary capacity.
DECISION 3 Without going into the merits of the submissions, it is seen that the order of the Appellate Authority dated 10.8.2010 has not been complied with insofar as Section 11 of the RTI Act is concerned. In view of this, the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority with directions to ensure that his orders are complied with by the CPIO and appropriate orders passed. The appellant will however be at liberty to move this Commission again if he is dissatisfied with the orders of CPIO/AA.
Sd/-
(Rajiv Mathur) Central Information Commissioner Copy to :-
Shri Anil Bairwal, National Coordinator, Association for Democratic Reforms, B-1/6, Upper Ground Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110 016. The Income Tax Officer & CPIO, Ward 47(1), Room No. 425, 4th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110 001 The Addl.Comissioner of Income Tax & A'A, Range 47, Room No. 428, Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Circus, New Delhi - 110 001.
(Raghubir Singh) Deputy Registrar 4 5