Central Information Commission
Bhaskar Daulat Bhamare vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 9 May, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.(s):- CIC/CCITN/A/2017/171711-BJ+
CIC/CCITM/A/2018/115571-BJ+
CIC/CCITM/A/2018/128904-BJ+
CIC/CCITM/A/2018/149267-BJ
Mr. Bhaskar Daulat Bhamare
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO
ITO (HQ) - 1 (2),
Office of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 1
Kendriya Rajaswa Bhawan, Gadkari Chowk
Old Agra Road, Nashik - 422002
2. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax
Range-3 and First Appellate Authority,
O/o the Jt. CIT, Range-3, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhawan,
Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, Nashik - 422002
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08.05.2019
Date of Decision : 08.05.2019
ORDER
RTI - I File No. CIC/CCITN/A/2017/171711-BJ Date of RTI application 24.04.2017 CPIO's response 15.05.2017 Date of the First Appeal 18.07.2017 (mentioned in FAA) First Appellate Authority's response 17.08.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 13.10.2017 Page 1 of 6 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding whether the additional amount of Rs. 23,40,000/- was shown in the Income Tax Return of his wife and desired inquiry in the matter, etc. The CPIO and ITO HQ 1(2), vide its letter dated 15.05.2017 transferred the RTI application to the JCIT, Range-3, Nashik. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 17.08.2017, while referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 denied disclosure of information u/s 8 (1) (j) on the ground that the information sought was personal in nature and no larger public interest warranting its disclosure was justified by the Appellant.
RTI - II File No. CIC/CCITM/A/2018/115571-BJ Date of RTI application 24.04.2017 CPIO's response 01.08.2017 Date of the First Appeal 22.08.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 04.12.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 13.03.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding the veracity of the 22 receipts of sale of farm produce by Sanjay Muralidhar Savkar through Malegon Court, investigation of investment of amount of Rs. 20,37,059/- through sale pr his farm produce by Sanjay Muralidhar Savkar, whether he had filed the Income Tax Return for the year 2014-15, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 01.08.2017 stated that the information sought by the Appellant pertained to a third party which was held by the department. As per Section 11 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 consent of the Third Party was sought on 11.07.2017. However, since the Third Party did not reply to the notice hence the right to disclose the information was on the CPIO. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 04.12.2017, while stating that no larger public interest was justified in disclosure of information denied its disclosure u/s 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
RTI - III File No. CIC/CCITM/A/2018/128904-BJ Date of RTI application 24.04.2017 CPIO's response 11.07.2017/ 01.08.2017 Date of the First Appeal 22.08.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 04.12.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 08.05.2018 Page 2 of 6 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought investigation into whether Sanjay Muralidhar Sawkar received unaccounted money, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 01.08.2017 stated that the information sought by the Appellant pertained to a third party which was held by the department. As per Section 11 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 consent of the Third Party was sought on 11.07.2017. However, since the Third Party did not reply to the notice hence the right to disclose the information was on the CPIO. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 04.12.2017, while stating that no larger public interest was justified in disclosure of information denied its disclosure u/s 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
RTI - IV File No. CIC/CCITM/A/2018/149267-BJ Date of RTI application 24.04.2017 CPIO's response 01.08.2017 Date of the First Appeal 22.08.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 04.12.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 07.08.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought investigation into whether Sanjay Muralidhar Sawkar received unaccounted money, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 01.08.2017 stated that the information sought by the Appellant pertained to a third party which was held by the department. As per Section 11 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 consent of the Third Party was sought on 11.07.2017. However, since the Third Party did not reply to the notice hence the right to disclose the information was on the CPIO. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 04.12.2017, while stating that no larger public interest was justified in disclosure of information denied its disclosure u/s 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Bhaskar Daulat Bhamare along with Mr. Jalil Ahmed, Adv. through VC; Respondent: Mr. Ketan Netkar, ITO & CPIO and Mr. Sanjay Sinha, CPIO & ITO Ward 2 (1) through VC;
The Appellant's representative reiterated the contents of the RTI applications and stated that in all these matters the CPIO / FAA incorrectly denied the information on the pretext that it pertained to a Third Party. However, he submitted that the issues raised pertained to the larger public interest since it involved allegations of evasion of income tax and capital gains tax by the citizens. In its reply, the Respondents submitted that essentially the issues emanated from personal family disputes which were being contested before the Civil Court hence information could be disclosed if so directed by the Court. As regards the status of the filing of income tax by Page 3 of 6 the individuals mentioned in the RTI applications and the veracity of Appellant's claim, it was submitted that both the individuals mentioned in the RTI applications were not filing income tax returns as per their record and the necessary investigation based on Appellant's allegations was underway. On being queried by the Commission regarding whether he had filed any TEP in any of these matters, till date, the Appellant / Appellant's representative replied in the negative since they did not possess any documentary evidence to substantiate their claims. On being further questioned if they were aware about the recent decision of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Jabalpur in the matter of Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Pawan Kumar Jain and others W.A. No. 168/2015 and Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others W.A. No. 170/2015 dated 15.05.2018, the Respondent replied in the negative and submitted that they would provide the updated factual position regarding the status of assessment of the persons mentioned in the RTI application to the Appellant, if so directed by the Commission.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 08.05.2019 (Appeal No. CIC/CCITN/A/2017/171711-BJ, CIC/CCITM/A/2018/115571-BJ and CIC/CCITM/A/2018/149267-BJ) wherein he stated that the Third Party i.e., Mr. Sanjay Muralidhar Savkar was given notice by the Appellate Authority under Section 11 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 who had refused to provide the information. It was contested that the said Sanjay Muralidhar Savkar might have evaded payment of appropriate taxes to the Government hence it was a matter of Public Interest. Moreover, the information sought related to the sale of property in the name of his wife and not third person and if the same was not provided it would cause heavy and irreparable loss to him. Hence it was prayed to allow the Second Appeal and direct the CPIO to provide the information.
The Commission referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
"13......The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right."
14. 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 larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
In this context, the decision of the Commission in Milap Choraria v. CBDT CIC/AT/A/2008/000628 dated 15.06.2009 can be cited wherein it had been held as under:
Page 4 of 6"15. From the above discussion, it would appear that the Income Tax Returns have been rightly held to be 'personal information' exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of section 8(1) of RTI Act by the CPIO and the Appellate Authority; and the appellant herein has not been able to establish that a larger public interest would be served by disclosure of this information."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Naresh Kumar Trehan v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta in W.P.(C) 85/2010 & CM Nos.156/2010 & 5560/2011 dated 24.11.2014 had observed as under:
"25. Indisputably, Section 8(1)(j) of the Act would be applicable to the information pertaining to Dr Naresh Trehan (petitioner in W.P.(C) 88/2010) and the information contained in the income tax returns would be personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. However, the CIC directed disclosure of information of Dr Trehan also by concluding that income tax returns and information provided for assessment was in relation to a "public activity." In my view, this is wholly erroneous and unmerited. The act of filing returns with the department cannot be construed as public activity. The expression "public activity" would mean activities of a public nature and not necessarily act done in compliance of a statute. The expression "public activity" would denote activity done for the public and/or in some manner available for participation by public or some section of public. There is no public activity involved in filing a return or an individual pursuing his assessment with the income tax authorities. In this view, the information relating to individual assessee could not be disclosed. Unless, the CIC held that the same was justified "in the larger public interest"
However, making a distinction with the said judgment of the Apex Court in G R Deshpande's matter, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. in Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Pawan Kumar Jain and others W.A. No. 168/2015 and Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others W.A. No. 170/2015 dated 15.05.2018 had in a matter where the information seeker had sought the salary details of her husband held as under:
"While dealing with the Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellant and the respondent No.1 are husband and wife and as a wife she is entitled to know what remuneration the respondent No.1 is getting.
Present case is distinguishable from the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) and therefore the law laid down by their Lordships in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) are not applicable in the present case.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No.341/2008. Similarly, the W.A. No.170/2015 is also allowed and the impugned order passed in W.P. No.1647/2008 is set aside."
Moreover, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in the matter of Rajesh Ramachandra Kidile vs. Maharashtra SIC and Ors in W.P. No. 1766 of 2016 dated 22.10.2018 held as under:
"8. Perusal of this application shows that the salary slips for the period mentioned in the application have been sought for by the Advocate. As rightly submitted by the learned Page 5 of 6 counsel for the petitioner, the salary slips contain such details as deductions made from the salary, remittances made to the Bank by way of loan instalments, remittances made to the Income Tax Authority towards part payment of the Income Tax for the concerned month and other details relating to contributions made to Provident Fund, etc. It is here that the information contained in the salary slips as having the characteristic of personal nature. Any information which discloses, as for example, remittances made to the Income tax Department towards discharge of tax liability or to the Bank towards discharge of loan liability would constitute the personal information and would encroach upon the privacy of the person. Therefore as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Girish Ramachandra Deshpande (supra) such an information could not be disclosed under the provisions of the RTI Act. This is all the more so when the information seeker is a person who is totally stranger in blood or marital relationship to the person whose information he wants to lay his hands on. It would have been a different matter, had the information been sought by the wife of the petitioner in order to support her contention in a litigation, which she filed against her husband. In a litigation, where the issue involved is of maintenance of wife, the information relating to the salary details no longer remain confined to the category of personal information concerning both husband and wife, which is available with the husband hence accessible by the wife. But in the present case, as stated earlier, the application has not been filed by the wife."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and taking into consideration the aforementioned analysis and the judgments of the Higher Courts, the Commission instructs the FAA to re-examine the RTI applications and inform the Appellant about the updated factual position regarding the status of filing of income tax return of the individuals mentioned therein within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 08.05.2019
Page 6 of 6