Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Jagadishwar Narukula vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 21 November, 2025

                                केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067


File No: CIC/CCITH/A/2024/619589

Jagadishwar Narukula                                  .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant



                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम


PIO,
Office of the Income Tax
Officer, Ward 2, Aaykar
Bhawan, Near Natraj Theatre,
Karimnagar - 505001                                   ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                     :    19.11.2025
Date of Decision                    :    21.11.2025

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on            :    04.03.2024
CPIO replied on                     :    25.03.2024
First appeal filed on               :    29.03.2024
First Appellate Authority's order   :    16.04.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :    09.05.2024

Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.03.2024 (online) seeking the following information:

"Request for information under section 6, 7 of RTI Act 2005 within 48 hrs. CIC/CCITH/A/2024/619589 Page 1 of 5 Regarding to request copies of entire IT returns filed with enclosures for the last three Assessment years of my wife Kandi Mounika.

Jagadishwar Narukula, am writing to you under the section 6, 7 of Right to Information Act 2005, to request copies of entire IT returns filed with enclosures for the last three Assessment years of my wife Kandi Mounika (Narukula Mounika) D/o Kandi Bhoomaiah. Aadhar card 4463 2207 0862 and date of birth 15/08/1993. PAN: DYHPK7927J This information is of utmost importance as she has filed a Maintenance Case in the court of Honble Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at Karimnagar, with case number D.V.C 87 of 2023 and M.C. No. 13 of 2023.

It has come to my attention that my wife Kandi Mounika is currently employed at Capgemini and she is misrepresenting and misleading the Honble Court by suppressing certain employment related facts, I kindly request the following information

1. Entire IT returns filed with enclosures for the last three Assessment years of my wife Kandi Mounika.

This information is crucial for the ongoing legal proceedings and will help substantiate my innocence and claims. Therefore, I request that you provide these details as soon as possible considering the urgency of matter.

I would like to bring to your attention a precedent set in a similar,

1. Yash Malhotra Vs CPIO Income Tax Department

2. second appeal No. CIC/CCITC/A/2018/612681-BJ Mr. Vinay Satija versus CPIO, ITO, Haryana where it was ruled that CPIO is obligated to furnish generic information regarding spouse details under the Right to Information Act.

I am confident that you will assist me in obtaining this information promptly and efficiently as mandated by the Right to Information Act, 2005. I am prepared to pay any required fees for processing this request and appreciate your timely response to this matter.

Kindly Note I have enclosed following documents. Marriage Certificate - Page 1 Court Documents - Page 2 to 3 Jagadishwar Narukula Aadhar card-Page 4 to 5 These documents hold significant relevance in the ongoing legal matters concerning Kandi Mounika, who has filed Domestic Violence and Maintenance cases. I firmly believe that the provision of this information is vital for establishment of my innocence."

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 25.03.2024 stating as under:

"The CPIO denied the requisite information to the appellant u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005."

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.03.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 16.04.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC is not available on record. Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent.

Respondent: Mr. Taselhi Kezo, CPIO-cum-ITO along with Ms. Kandi Mounika (third party), attended the hearing through VC.

6. The Appellant did not participate in the hearing.

7. The Respondent submitted that the information sought by the Appellant in the instant RTI Application is third party personal information which is CIC/CCITH/A/2024/619589 Page 3 of 5 exempted from disclosure under Section (8) (1) (j) read with Section 11 of the RTI Act.

Decision:

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, accepts the stand of the Respondent that the information sought in the instant RTI Application is personal information of third party and the disclosure of the same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act. In this regard, the Commission notes that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010, vide order dated 13.11.2019, has held as under:

"59...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....."

9. The above ratio is applicable to this case as well. Hence, no intervention of the Commission is required in the instant case.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 CIC/CCITH/A/2024/619589 Page 4 of 5 Copy To:

Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)