Central Information Commission
Manisha Gopal vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 19 February, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCITM/A/2023/645790
Manisha Gopal .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Income Tax Officer (IT) - 2(3)(1),
Mumbai, Room No. 1727, 17th Floor,
Air India Building, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 400021 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13.02.2025
Date of Decision : 19.02.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.04.2023
CPIO replied on : 10.05.2023
First appeal filed on : 09.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 06.07.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21.09.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 13.04.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. Copy of Mr. Utpal Gopal's Income Tax Returns for the past 5 (Five) years i.e., for 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22.Page 1 of 6
2. Details of both the PAN Cards bearing numbers ACGPG0660C and BBEPG8845B.
3. List of properties attached to Aadhar number 5364 2892 3652 and PAN Cards ACGPG0660C and BBEPG8845B.
4. Details of Mr. Utpal Gopal's current residential address in Delhi, along with details of any other state in India or elsewhere."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 10.05.2023 stating as under:
"In this regard, it is seen that as per section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information the department is not in obligation to give any citizen any information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and unless it has the larger public interest."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.06.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 06.07.2023, held as under.
"In this regard it is apt to mention the decision dated 01.07.2009 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P (c) 803/2009 titled as Vijay Prakash v. UOI & others wherein it has been clarified that in a private dispute between 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 unless the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in 'public interest'.
Another case relied on by the appellant is the Dr. Dheeraj Kapoor Vs Directorate of Health Services GNCTD, Delhi, bearing File no. CIC/SA/A/2014/000494, is also distinguishable on facts as there is no employee -employer relation between appellant and the Income Tax Department.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLPO No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 as under:-
"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 large public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."Page 2 of 6
In light of the provisions of sections mentioned in the RTI Act, 2005 and decision cited above, the information sought by the appellant cannot be provided being devoid of any public interest."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing on 12.12.2024:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person along with Advocate Adab Singh Kapoor. Respondent: Not Present.
The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 26.12.2024:
Interim Decision dated 26.12.2024:
From the perusal of the records, it has come to the attention of the Commission that the hearing notice sent to the Respondent returned undelivered with the postal remarks "insufficient address". It seems that the hearing notice was not sent to the correct adfress of the Public Authority.
Neither the Respondent is present in the hearing nor there is a proper response of the PIO is on record. In the absence of these above, the Commission cannot adjudicate the issue properly. In view of the this, the matter is adjourned. The Registry of this Bench is directed to re-list the present matter within a period of four weeks and notice of hearing should be sent on the correct address of the Public Authority.
The Respondent is directed to file their written submissions covering all points of the RTI application as also the points raised in written submissions of the Appellant with a copy to the Appellant before the next date of hearing.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing on 13.02.2025: The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person along with Advocate Shri Adab Singh Kapoor.Page 3 of 6
Respondent: Ms. Shiba Thomas, ITO & CPIO present through Video- Conference.
The written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The counsel of the Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the arguments made during the last date of hearing and requested the Commission that complete information related to her husband should be provided to her. The counsel of the Appellant submitted that the Respondent has again wrongly denied disclosure of information, which is not correct.
The Appellant requested the Commission that the information till the current year should also be provided to her.
The CPIO submitted that they have categorically informed the Appellant that the information sought is personal information of third party which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, the third party has also denied disclosure of his information to the Appellant.
W.r.t. two PAN card numbers, the third party submitted that "I have always used PAN ACGPG0660C and no other PAN all my life. PAN BBEPG8845B came to my notice only when case was filed by Smt. Manisha Gopal. I never had the physical possession of the PAN BBEPG8845B. I have, as per the direction of PRO ITO in Delhi, filed a request to the officer in Thane Ward 3(4) for changing it to the same ward as my PAN ACGPG0660C, along with 2 reminders and awaiting reply. I will provide the documentary evidence for same by 12th May, 2023."
The Respondent submitted that action will be taken for deactivating the second PAN of the third party in due course.
Decision:
In furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that this bench has dealt with cases bearing the factual matrix of a spouse seeking salary slip of another in pursuit of a matrimonial dispute and the stance that had 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 Page 4 of 6 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..."
In light of the above observations, the Respondent should ascertain that the Appellant is the legally wedded wife of Mr. Utpal Gopal and there is a maintenance case/matrimonial case pending before the judicial Court. For said purpose, the Appellant is directed to submit complete relevant documents on the e-mail ID of the Respondent Public Authority i.e. <mumbai[dot]addlcit[dot]it2[dot]3[at]incometax[dot]gov[dot]in> and can also send hard-copy of the same within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of the same, the Respondent is directed to provide the "generic details of the net taxable income/gross income" of the estranged husband for the period as on the date of RTI application and may also consider furnishing information till date, free of cost, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the documents from the Appellant. No other Page 5 of 6 personal information of third party can be divulged to the Appellant under the RTI Act.
The FAA is directed to ensure compliance of this order.
No further relief to be granted in the matter.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (IT), Range - 2-3, Mumbai, Room No. 1710, 17th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)