Central Information Commission
Mrangoori Devi Meena Fd Po C Mkt Delhi ... vs Cbdt on 12 February, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/004299/BS/9736
12 February 2016
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Ms. Angoori Devi,
R/o 273, Category B, 7th Floor,
Plot No 49, Neelkanth Apartment,
Sector - 13, Rohini, Delhi - 110085
Respondent : CPIO and Dy. Commissioner of Income tax
Department of Income Tax,
O/o DCIT- Central Circle 18,
Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi
CPIO/ Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Department of Income tax
O/o ACIT- Central circle- 9
Room No. 357, ARA Centre,
Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi
ITO (HQRS-PERSONNEL)
Income Tax Department
RTI Room no 375 A,
Central Revenues Building
IP Estate, New Delhi-110002
RTI application filed on : 25/01/2014
PIO replied on : 03/03/2014
First appeal filed on : 10/03/2014
First Appellate Authority order : 17/04/2014
Second Appeal dated : 28/06/2014
Information sought:
The appellant through 40 queries has sought the information in connection with pending re- assessment proceedings in her own case for AY 2008-09 which was pending before the jurisdictional Assessing Officer i.e. DCIT, Circle- 21(1), Delhi and various information related to Searches conducted on AEZ Group since the year 2011, satisfaction note recorded, sums surrendered by AEZ Group, and the circumstances in which such surrender was made, status of assessments/ appeals and recovery in AEZ group case, nature of information forming the basis of "reason to believe" in applicants own case, opportunity of cross examination of Directors of AEZ Group, status of assessment/ appeals in cases of other investors and related information.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.Page 1 of 3
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. J. K. Sonkar, CPIO Central Circle (18); Mr. Bilendra Kumar representative of CPIO/ACIT(Circle 39(I));
The appellant vide her written submissions dated 08/02/2016 has informed that her authorised representative will not be available for over two months and the matter may be decided on merits. She has contended as under:-
1. The builder AEZ has notorious image of managing raids and all ulterior means to arm twist investors like her for his advantage. Graft cannot be ruled out in the income tax department (ITD).
2. In reply to another RTI application, ITD has disclosed many details about AEZ, like trial balance, balance sheet, profit & loss account etc. without the consent or knowledge of the builder. This indicates that the plea of the department regarding third party information is not tenable.
3. In reply to another RTI application the ITD has revealed many crucial and confidential details of one Maya Singh another investor like her in AEZ even without asking for it.
This clearly shows that third party argument is not applicable. Her assessment has been botched up with Maya Singh and others due to which she badly need requisite information from ITD. ITD has disclosed her private information to others without her knowledge and if not, they should negate this by way of affidavit.
4. The FAA has directed CPIO to disclose the desired information still no details have been given.
5. In the past private information has been allowed to be disclosed where larger public interest is served. A case in point is about information sought regarding income tax inquiry against Mr. Nitin Gadkari which was disclosed to RTI activist Mr. Sumit Dalal. The disclosure would act as deterrent for ITD from making arbitrary assessments.
6. She has constitutional right to defend herself and her queries are general in nature and information is required to challenge the wrong assessment done by ITD.
7. The 3 case laws cited by ITD have no relevance because the facts of all these cases are totally different from her case. She cannot be treated as third party as the information is needed by her to defend herself against the income tax department.
8. Her queries do not impede any investigation or invade anyone's privacy.
9. The attitude of the respondents has been pathetic and against the spirit of RTI law and needs to be dealt with by imposing maximum penalty.
The CPIO Central Circle (18) stated that the appellant has sought information relating to Income Tax matters of an assessee M/s AEZ and they had carried out the process as outlined under Section 11 of the RTI Act but the assessee has objected to the disclosure. He further stated Page 2 of 3 that the information relates to third party, is personal in nature and no larger public purpose has been demonstrated by the appellant to justify its disclosure. He claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and added that Income Tax Department cannot be drawn in a dispute between parties. To a query, he clarified that Income Tax Department has not disclosed any details about M/s AEZ / Maya Singh to any third party.
The CPIO's representative Circle 39(I) stated that all information relating to the appellant's assessment proceedings has been furnished to her vide letter dated 29/10/2013 and if she needs any further information she is free to inspect the relevant records and take whatever information/documents she needs. He further stated that there is a proper dispute resolution mechanism for Income Tax assessment and the appellant should take recourse to the same instead of agitating the matter under RTI Act. As regards FAA's order dated 17/04/2014, the respondent clarified that FAA had only directed to provide the information which is not exempted under RTI Act.
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. However, as stated by the CPIO's representative Circle 39(I) the appellant, if she so desires, should be allowed to inspect her assessment file and also take photocopies therefrom on payment of prescribed fee of Rs.2/- per page.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 3 of 3