Central Information Commission
Sri Suman Ghosh vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 30 September, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CCITK/A/2020/684628
Sri Suman Ghosh ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o the Income Tax Officer,
Ward-44(1), Kolkata, Room No. 14A,
Ground Floor, 3, Govt. Place (W),
Kolkata-700001, West Bengal .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28/09/2022
Date of Decision : 28/09/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13/03/2020
CPIO replied on : 29/05/2020
First appeal filed on : 15/06/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 13.03.2020 seeking the following information:
"Certified Details of all source of INCOME, ACCOUNTS associated with PAN No, all of her ASSETS and LIABILITIES, the Income Tax Return filed from 2016 till 2020 by 1 my wife Smt. Tanuree Das Ghosh associated with PAN CARD no AMPPD9495D declared by my wife AND/OR existing in the database of IT Department."
The CPIO denied information to the appellant on 29.05.2020 under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.06.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Govind Kundu through audio conference. Respondent: Niladri Kumar Ghosh, ITO & CPIO present through audio conference. Third Party- Tanusree Das present through audio conference.
The Rep. of the Appellant narrated at length the details of the family court case ensuing between the Appellant and his estranged wife. He urged for relief to be ordered on compassionate grounds in line with earlier orders of the Commission referred to in the detailed written submissions of the Appellant filed prior to the hearing wherein the gross/net taxable income has been allowed to be disclosed to spouses in maintenance related cases. He further reiterated certain extracts of the said stating as under:
"a) An Appeal under section 29 of Domestic Violence is preferred by me in the Court of Ld. Sessions Judge, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur and the pending for adjudication on the matter related to alteration/revocation of an exparte order passed in the year 2012. The appeal is filed against Respondent State and my Wife Tanusree Das alias Tanusree Ghosh Das. That apart there are large of cases pending within the parties in the court of law for the want of justice.
b) In the case of Shri Bhagwan Dutt vs. Smt. Kamla Devi and Anr. (1975) 2 SCC 386 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that '19. The object of these provisions being to prevent vagrancy and destitution, the Magistrate has to find out as to what is required by the wife to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious, but is modestly consistent with the status of the family.2
The needs and requirements of the wife for such moderate living can be fairly determined, only if her separate income, also is taken into account together with the earnings of the husband and his commitments'. in the matter Rajnesh v. Neha, 2020 SCC OnLine SC903, it is clearly mentioned by the Apex Court that 'If during the course of proceedings, there is a change in the financial status of any party, or there is a change of any relevant circumstances, or if some new information comes to light, the party may submit an amended / supplementary affidavit, which would be considered by the court at the time of final determination'. In the matter related to Rajnish vs Neha 2020 SCC OnLine SC 903 it has been mentioned by the Apex Court that 'On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The Court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living'. It has been further reiterated by the Apex Court in the same case that 'The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury.' It was also held by Hon'ble Apex Court that 'The pleadings made in the applications for maintenance and replies filed should be responsible pleadings: if false statements and misrepresentations are made, the Court may consider initiation of proceeding u/S. 340 Cr.P.C., and for contempt of Court.' In my case, this has been sheer legal hooliganism by the name of sacred law, wherein my Wife is sufficient able to sustain herself with enough earnings/bank balances from sources and She is employed as well since long back which she has withheld before the Ld. Courts in order to quench her thirst for obtaining money in one way or other and in order to harass me financially she has been executing the ex parte orders for obtaining additional sum from me suppressing all critical and material facts and financial informations. The CPIO/FAA, while applying their judicial mind should have at least shown adequate efforts either by invoking Section 11 of RTI Act or should have appropriately delved into the matter when there was a Public Interest mentioned in the matter of high importance rather than outrightly rejecting the application made under RTI Act.
c) My Wife Smt Tanusree Ghosh Das is already gainfully employed long back since more than half a decade. She is in custodian of enormous wealth/assets accumulated in the Postal Savings Accounts and multiple Bank Accounts. However 3 she has been deliberately withholding these financial informations year on year just to quench her thirst towards obtaining additional sum in way of purported ex parte maintenance order and that is why a RTI request was made to the Income Tax Office to provide me details of her Assets/Income and Liabilities just enabling me to defend my case so that I can put forward my claims retrospectively for the interest of justice. In case if those assests/interest accrued from Assets are not recorded/declared in the Income Tax Returns it was the duty to make a formidable enquiry enabling the trust build around RTI Law and its efficacy."
The CPIO reiterated the denial of the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The third party referred to her written submissions filed prior to the hearing stating as under:
"...I want to inform you that please don't disclose any personal and confidential information to Suman Ghosh the appellant of this case regarding any financial matter connected with me. So I would request you not to disclose any information to Suman Ghosh for my safety and security as Honourable Calcutta High Court has passed an order in CRR-653/2016 on dated 10/2/2017 against this appellant so only for disturbance and harassment to a lady this appellant is intentionally doing these things. The honourable Information Commissioner Neeraj Kumar Gupta has said that a husband is not entitled to seek information regarding bank details and income tax returns of his wife under the Right to Information Act. Bombay High court has held that an information officer cannot directly supply a person's personal information unless the authority is satisfied that such disclosure would be in large public interest.
The Honourable Supreme court has passed an order by a division bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice K.S.Radha Krishnan stated that income tax returns, assets, liabilities, official orders and performance records of public officers are personal information and can be exempted under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act of 2005.The provision exempts from disclosure of any personal information that doesn't serve a larger public interest, or when it can result in the invasion of a person's privacy.
So I would humbly request you not to give any personal and confidential information to Suman Ghosh regarding any matter directly or indirectly connected with me..."4
Decision:
This bench has dealt with cases bearing the same factual matrix and the stance that has been maintained by it so far is that the information sought for in the RTI Application pertains to the personal information of a third party and stands duly exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant(s) has been drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"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. 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..."
Further, in matters concerning the disputes of a husband and wife, the Commission is guided by a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Vijay Prakash vs. Union of India (W.P. (C) 803/2009) dated 01.07.2009 wherein the Court observed that in private disputes such as the present one between a husband and wife "...The basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption (from disclosure) enacted under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be lifted or disturbed.."
5However, in the recent past, by way of the continuing reliance placed by a staggering number of applicants on the decision dated 06.11.2020 of the Commission in the Rahmat Bano case, this bench is inclined to echo the same rationale and for the sake of clarity, relevant portion of the said decision wherein while making a reference to the ratio laid down in the Apex Court judgement in the Girish Ramachandra (supra) case it was held as under:
"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."
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 6 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 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."
9. Taking into consideration the aforementioned analysis and the judgments of the Higher Courts, the Commission directs the respondent to inform the appellant about the generic details of the net taxable income/gross income of her husband held and available with the Public Authority for the period 2017- 2018, within a period of 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order. Emphasis Supplied
10. The details/copy of income tax returns and other personal information of third party need not to be disclosed to the appellant except as mentioned at para no. 9 above."
7In pursuance of the Appellant's plea in the grounds of the Second Appeal urging that the information is being requested for a maintenance case, applying the same yardstick as applicable to a wife in such cases, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the "generic details of the net taxable income/gross income" of the wife for the specified time period as contained in the RTI Application to the Appellant free of cost within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance report to this effect shall be sent to the Commission by the CPIO immediately thereafter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8