Central Information Commission
Shri Bhushan Kumar vs Income Tax Department on 17 October, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00490
Dated, the 17th October, 2008.
Appellant : Shri Bhushan Kumar
Respondents : Income Tax Department
This matter was heard on 15.10.2008. Appellant was absent in response to Commission's hearing notice dated 16.07.2008. Respondents were present through the CPIO, Shri Manjit Singh.
2. Respondents pointed out that through Commission's order dated 09.07.2007 in Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00464 an exactly similar matter was decided in appeal filed by the same appellant. Appellant cannot be allowed to repeatedly bring up the same matter as it would be offensive to the principle of Res Judicata.
3. The RTI-request of the appellant, dated 25.09.2007 was in regard to all information including Action Taken Report held by the public authority relative to the investigation regarding the sources of income and tax liabilities of the third-party, Shri Rajinder Singh Saggu.
4. CPIO, through his communication dated 18.12.2007, declined to disclose the requested information citing the personal nature of the information and the earlier decisions of the Commission not to allow disclosure of such information.
5. The appellant has argued that the requested information merited disclosure in the light of the Delhi High Court judgement in Bhagat Singh case.
6. It is noted that the third-party has objected to the disclosure of this information on the ground that the appellant was his son-in-law with whom he was engaged in an ongoing litigation. Appellant feared that if this information were to pass into the hands of the appellant, he would misuse it to inflict harm on the third-party.
7. On perusal of the document submitted by both parties as well as the third-party and on hearing the arguments, Commission sees no deficiency in the orders passed by the CPIO and the Appellate Authority. The Delhi High Court order cited by the appellant in support of his claim for disclosure of information has no application in the present case, insofar as the pith and the substance of the Court decision was the scope of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. In the present case, Page 1 of 2 the issue before the Commission is whether a set of information known to be personal to a third-party be allowed to be disclosed to an applicant regardless of the objection of the third-party and regardless of the harm such disclosure might inflict on the third-party.
8. In Commission's view, all income tax-related information, as entrusted by an assessee to the charge of the income tax authorities, is personal information and, does not cease to be so only because rather than be in the hands of the assessee, it has been passed on into the control of the public authority under a statute. The location of the information doesn't alter its character.
9. It is the Commission's considered opinion that all income tax-related information held by the public authority on behalf of an assessee comprises assessee's personal information under Section 8(1)(j) and cannot be disclosed in order to promote some self-serving concept of transparency as now projected by the petitioner. Commission also cannot be oblivious of the fact that given the strained relationship between the petitioner and the third-party there is considerable scope for the misuse of this divulged information. Such disclosures will compromise and not promote the objective of the RTI Act.
10. In view of the above, I find no merit in the appellant's submissions. The AA's decision is upheld. Appeal closed.
11. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Page 2 of 2