Central Information Commission
Nanda Ashoka Rao vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 5 January, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
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/ECRBH/A/2019/154538/CCITK
and CIC/ITBNG/A/2019/135182/CCITK
Mrs. Nanda Ashoka Rao ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
O/o. the Income Tax Officer, Ward
No. 1(1), CR Building, Navanagar,
Hubballi, Karnataka-560025
Relevant dates emerging from the appeals:-
RTI : 26-04-2019 FA : 04-05-2019 SA : 13-11-2019
CPIO : 09-04-2019 FAO : 04-06-2019 Hearing : 31-12-2021
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) O/o. the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 1(1), Huballi, Karnataka. The appellant seeking information is as under:-
"Para No.3 - I have not asked any information from lncome Tax Department whether or not Mr Raju Bagare and Mrs. Ratna Bagare have filed lncome Tax Returns. And the official writes that they have been regularly filing returns (which is strange and irrelevant for me).
When I met Mr Uppin on 13th December 2018, I was told by him that in the absence of PAN Numbers, nothing can be traced. Then how he is now telling that the above named persons have been regularly filing the returns. This clearly reflects the laxity, connivance and negligence of the concerned official despite the fact that the petition is reason based and the officials have acted so for their personal benefits and pushed my petition incognito. instead of investigating the source of funds for purchasing such Page 1 of 5 expensive properties, the concerned official has only confirmed that they are filing returns which is not the topic of my petition and for last many years, there is literally no income for Mr Raju Bagare having closed down the shop- Esquire Tailors, Ganesh pet, Hubli long ago.
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 09-04-2019 given reply to the appellant as the information furnished by you does not call for any action for the same. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file first appeal dated 04-05-2019 and requested that the information should be provided to her. The FAO vide order dated 04-06-2019 upheld CPIOs reply and rejected the appeal. She has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to her and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Sudhir Patil, DCIT/ CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. Both the parties submitted their written submissions and the same have been taken on record.
5. The appellant submitted that the desired information has not been provided to her by the respondent on her RTI application dated 26.04.2019.
6. The respondent while reiterating the replies of the CPIO/ FAA submitted that vide their letter dated 09.04.2019 they furnished a due reply to the appellant. He further submitted that vide second appeal no. CIC/CCITK/A/2019/154423, the appellant has sought a similar kind of information wherein the Commission vide its order dated 08.07.2021, directed the CPIO to furnish the action taken and the broad outcome in the TEP filed by her. In compliance of which the CPIO, vide letter dated 21.10.2021 furnished a due reply to the appellant. Further the appellant is seeking the personal information of third party which is specifically barred from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought the ITR details of Mr Raju Bagare and Mrs. Ratna Bagare. The Commission further observes that the appellant has sought third party personal information i.e. the income details and the same cannot be provided as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
Page 2 of 58. In this regard, the Commission referred to the judgment of the 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"
The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the decision of Shailesh Gandhi v. CIC and Ors WP 8753 of 2013 dated 06.05.2015 had held as under
"16......the said contention is thoroughly misconceived as filing of Income Tax Returns can by no stretch of imagination be said to be a public activity, but is an obligation which a citizen owes to the State viz. to pay his taxes and since the said information is held by the Income Tax Department in a fiduciary capacity , the same cannot be directed to be revealed unless the prerequisites for the same are satisfied.
23...........Since the right to privacy has been recognized as a fundamental right to which a citizen is entitled to, therefore unless the conditions mentioned in Section 8 (1) (j) is satisfied, the information cannot be provided."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the matter of Vinubhai Haribhai Patel (Malavia) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Civil Application No. 7187 of 2014 dated 16.07.2015 had held as under:
Page 3 of 5"5. Now, turning to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the kind and nature of the information demanded by the petitioner clearly falls within the expression "personal information". The personal character of the information demanded in the nature of Income-tax Returns of the private parties to get disclosure about the payment of tax by them which was again in order to know about their status as agriculturists declared to be so by the authorities in the legal proceedings, could be indeed said to be personal. It was in the background of litigation between the petitioner and the said private persons relating to their property rights wherein the Will in favour of private parties was disputed and the disputes of civil nature were being agitated before the forum concerned and the court. This information being personal in nature, could not be claimed as a matter of right by the petitioner, rather they were clearly exempted information under Section 8(1)(j). The contention of larger public interest justifying the disclosure does not exist. In disclosing the said information asked for by the petitioner relating to the private parties, there was no element of public interest to be sub-served. The information was personal information relating to third parties. The attendant facts and circumstances and the litigation between the petitioner and those parties, instead indicated that the information was personal information which was asked for by the petitioner for his own personal interest and private purpose. Respondent No. 3-Central Information Commissioner was eminently justified in taking a view that there was no public interest present in the information claimed to be supplied, rightly denying the same by dismissing the appeal."
9. The Commission further observes that action taken and broad outcome has already been furnished to the appellant vide letter dated 21.10.2021, in compliance of the order passed by the Commission vide second appeal no. CIC/CCITK/A/2019/154423, dated 08.07.2021. In view of the above ratio, the Commission is of the opinion that the reply provided by the respondent is satisfactory and same is being upheld by the Commission. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For the redressal of her grievance the appellant is advised to approach the higher authorities through alternative forum.
Page 4 of 510. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 31-12-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
O/o. the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 1(1),
CR Building, Navanagar, Hubballi, Karnataka-560025
2. Mrs. Nanda Ashoka Rao Page 5 of 5