Central Information Commission
Mrbimalendu Bikas Sarkar vs Cbdt on 1 June, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/CC/A/2014/002545/BS/10472
01 June 2016
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Bimalendu Bikas Sarkar,
R/o - 33, Kamal Park,
P.O. - Birati, Kolkata - 700051,
West Bengal
Respondent : CPIO / ITO - Ward 30(3), Kolkata,
Income Tax Department
O/o ITO - Ward 30(3), Kolkata,
Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin,
2 Gariahat Road (S), Kolkata - 68
RTI application filed on : 06/06/2014
PIO replied on : 18/07/2014
First appeal filed on : 08/08/2014
First Appellate Authority order : 12/08/2014
Second Appeal dated : 04/11/2014
Information sought:
With reference to office letter C No. VIG/KOL/Misc.CBI/08.09/928 dated 18/02/2009 issued by the Additional CIT (Hqrs.) (Vig.) Kolkata for CIT KOL-I addressed to the Registrar Court of Judge 24 pgs, First Special Court, Alipore, Kolkata.
(a) Findings of the re-opened assessment under Section 148 of the IT Act 1961 for the years 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 in respect of Sri Rongon Neogi as reported in the above letter.
(b) And the reports of Scruting assessment under Section 143(3) of IT Act 1961, in respect of Returns filed by Rongon Neogi, Sri Suman Neogi & M/s Continental Catering Services for the assessment year 2008-09 as informed in the above office letter for safeguarding interest of Revenue.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Bimalendu Bikas Sarkar through VC Respondent: Ms. Smriti Roy CPIO through VC The appellant stated that he has not received the information sought in his RTI application dated 06/06/2014. The CPIO stated that the information relates to third party and they had carried out the process as outlined under Section 11 of the RTI Act, however, the assessees have objected to the disclosure. She further submitted that reply to the RTI application was sent by the Page 1 of 2 then CPIO vide letter dated 18/07/2014 intimating that the information cannot be disclosed being exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The appellant argued that the respondent have admitted before the Court that discrepancy was found in the tax returns and accordingly they had reopened the assessment and he wants to know what was the result of scrutiny/reassessment. The CPIO contended that scrutiny/reassessment is done in hundreds of cases and there is no larger public interest which justifies the disclosure of personal information relating to the two assessees. The appellant argued that he is seeking information in larger public interest as the Addl. Commissioner has admitted that the proceeding was on account of revenue. The CPIO stated that the department always considers revenue angle while carrying out any proceedings under the Income Tax Act and this cannot be a ground to justify larger public interest.
Decision notice:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande [decision dated 03/10/2012 - SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012] has held that information relating to income tax matters of an assessee is "personal information" which stands exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless the CPIO is satisfied that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its decision dated 24/11/2014 [W.P. (C) 85/2010 Naresh Trehan vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta] has clarified as under:-
"36. In my view, the CIC has misdirected itself in concluding that this was in larger public interest. The CIC arrived at this conclusion by noting that disclosure of information was in larger public interest in increasing public revenue and reducing corruption. The assessment proceedings are not public proceedings where all and sundry are allowed to participate and add their opinion to the proceedings. Merely because a spirited citizen wishes to assist in assessment proceedings, the same cannot be stated to be in larger public interest. On the contrary, larger public interest would require that assessment proceedings are completed expeditiously and by the authorities who are statutorily empowered to do so."
In the matter at hand the appellant has not established that the information sought is for larger public purpose. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the respondent's decision.
The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 2 of 2