Central Information Commission
Pritam N Sanghvi vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 12 October, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CCITJ/A/2021/140446
CIC/CCITJ/A/2021/139329
CIC/CCITJ/A/2021/139358
CIC/CCITJ/A/2021/140445
Pritam N Sanghvi ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o the Income Tax Officer,
Ward-1(2), RTI Cell, Aayakar
Bhawan, Johdpur - 342001, Rajasthan. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11/10/2022
Date of Decision : 11/10/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note: The above referred Appeals have been clubbed for decision as these are
based on identical RTI Application(s).
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application(s) filed on : 25/06/2021 & 22/06/2021
CPIO replied on : 05/07/2021 & 06/07/2021& 14/07/2021
First appeal filed on : 31/07/2021 & 29/07/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : 25/08/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07/09/2021
1
CIC/CCITJ/A/2021/140446
CIC/CCITJ/A/2021/139329
CIC/CCITJ/A/2021/139358
Information sought:
The Appellant filed three RTI application(s) dated 25.06.2021 with Pr.CCIT, Jaipur; ACIT(HQrs.), Jodhpur and ITO, Ward 1(5), Jodhpur, respectively while the CPIO. ITO Ward 1(2) replied to these RTI Application(s) on 05.07.2021, 06.07.2021 and 14.07.2021, respectively. The contents of the RTI Application(s) & replies are reproduced hereunder:
Sl. No Questions Reply 1 Copy of the Appeal filed by Perusal of contents of the application Pradeep Vidhani, B-37, Umaid shows that the applicant request to Club Road, Jodhpur, in terms of provide copy of Appeal filed by Assessment order done Pradeep Vidhani (Partner-Sai involving larger public Enterprises) B- 37, Ummain Club Road, interest/Govt. Revenue Jodhpur in terms of Assessment order involved. done for F.Y. 2011-12 to 2016-17.
Involving larger public Interest, significant revenue for Government.
The information sought by the applicant is personal in nature hence cannot be provided to the applicant and also not larger public interest is involved in this matter. As per section 8(j) of RTI, Act, 20O5 as per this section "information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of he privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the state Public Information Officer or 2 the appellate authority, as the cause may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information"
Therefore, your application is hereby rejected as the information sought is personal in Nature and involves no larger public interest.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal(s) dated 31.07.2021. FAA's order dated 25.08.2021, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/CCITJ/A/2021/140445 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.06.2021 seeking the following information and the CPIO replied to the appellant on 05.07.2021 as under:
Sl. No Questions Reply
1 Recovery of Income Tax done Perusal of contents of the application
on Pradeep Vidhani/Neetu shows that the applicant request to
Vidhani, B-37, Umaid Club provide copy of Appeal filed by
Road, Jodhpur. In Income Tax Pradeep Vidhani/ Neetu Vidhani
revision matter involving larger (Partner-Sai Enterprises) B- 37, public interest/Govt. Revenue Ummain Club Road, Jodhpur in terms involved. of Assessment order done for F.Y. 2011-12 to 2016-17. Involving larger public Interest, significant revenue for Government.
The information sought by the applicant is personal in nature hence cannot be provided to the applicant and also not larger public interest is involved in this matter. As per section 3 8(j) of RTI, Act, 20O5 as per this section "information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of he privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the state Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the cause may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information"
Therefore, your application is hereby rejected as the information sought is personal in Nature and involves no larger public interest.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.07.2021. FAA's order dated 25.08.2021, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Ram Kishore Banta, ITO & CPIO present through video conference.
The Appellant stated with immense agony that the third party under reference was associated with his firm for some real estate work but he turned out to be a nuisance maker and is accused of various criminal cases. He further vehenetly stated that the said third party has troubled the income tax authorities from Kolhapur to Jodhpur, and yet, the Jodhpur authorities have been turning a blind 4 eye to all of this misery caused to him and his firm due to the ill motives of the averred third party. He also alleged that the said individual has been demanding TDS from his firm when he is himself accused of massive tax evasions, and yet continues to harass others by filing hundreds of RTI Applications etc and urged that he should be banned from using the provisions of the RTI Act. He furthermore added that the said individual even tendered a cheque to him that bounced and is therefore liable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In this backdrop, the Appellant insisted that the Commission should order relief citing it as a matter of public interest.
The CPIO submitted that as per the RTI Act provisions the information was denied to the Appellant as it related to the personal information of a third party.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the reply provided by the CPIO to the instant RTI Application(s) is as per the provisions of the RTI Act, i.e the denial of the information related to the income tax returns of a third party being personal in nature stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the said exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is reproduced as under:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen:
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:.."
In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is further 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 5 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..." Emphasis Supplied Further, on the aspect of larger public interest, the Commission places reliance on a catena of judgments of the superior Courts on the import of "public interest" as under:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.9052 OF 2012] observed as under:
"23. The expression 'public interest' has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act.
The expression 'public interest' must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression 'public interest', like 'public purpose', is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs. [State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (AIR 1952 SC 252)]. It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recommendation and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)]. Emphasis Supplied 6 "24. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision. Certain matters, particularly in relation to appointment, are required to be dealt with great confidentiality."
".... Similarly, there may be cases where the disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. All these protections have to be given their due implementation as they spring from statutory exemptions. It is not a decision simpliciter between private interest and public interest. It is a matter where a constitutional protection is available to a person with regard to the right to privacy. Thus, the public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance factor between right to privacy and right to information with the purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be served in the larger public interest, particularly when both these rights emerge from the constitutional values under the Constitution of India." Emphasis Supplied Similarly, in another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. P. Gupta v President of India, [AIR 1982 SC 149], with reference to 'public interest' it has been maintained that:
"Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, 'diffused' rights and interests vindicate public interest... [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected." Emphasis Supplied And, in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others [Appeal (Civil) 4937-4940 of 1998], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"the interest of general public (public interest) is of a wide importance covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution [i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy]". Emphasis Supplied Since there is no material on record to ascribe larger public interest in the disclosure of the information in any of the above referred contexts, moreover, the 7 averments of the Appellant during the hearing were purely premised on personal animosity, the Commission finds no scope of relief to be ordered in the matter.
Having observed as above, the Commission upholds the denial of the information by the CPIO.
The appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8