Central Information Commission
Parveen Kumar vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 18 August, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No. CIC/CCITC/A/2019/100872
Parveen Kumar ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, O/o. The Income Tax ...प्रनतवािी/Respondent
Officer-(Exemption), Jalandhar.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 27-08-2018 FA : 10-10-2018 SA : 07-01-2019
CPIO : 29-09-2018 FAO : Not on Record Hearing: 13-08-2020
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-(Exemption), Jalandhar seeking following information:-
"Balance Sheet along with Audit Report of last 10 years of Sacred Heart Convent School, Kohara Road, Machhiwara."
2. The CPIO responded on 29-09-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 10-10-2018 which was not disposed of by the first appellate authority. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Parveen Kumar attended the hearing through audio conferencing. Mr. Jagdeep Singh, ITO(Exemptions) participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.Page 1 of 6
4. The appellant stated that the respondent should be directed to provide him the Balance Sheet and the Audit Report of the last 10 years of Sacred Heart Convent School, Kohara Road, Machhiwara. He contended that he is seeking information of an educational institution which performs 'public activity' and therefore, the information sought on behalf of the Parents Association (Regd.), Machhiwara should be disclosed to him, as it is not a third party information.
5. The respondent submitted that the appellant is seeking Balance Sheet and the Audit Report of the third party, Sacred Heart Convent School, Kohara Road, Machhiwara which is personal in nature and therefore, they had claimed exemption u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. They had also sent a third party notice u/Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 to Sacred Heart Convent School, Kohara Road, Machhiwara on 08-09-2018 which was answered in negative and accordingly, no consent was given vide objection letter dated 20-09-2018 for disclosure of their Balance Sheet and the Audit Report. The third party has submitted its objections thereby contending that it is a private minority institution which does not receive any govt. aid and therefore, its information should be treated as personal in nature.
Decision:
6. This Commission observes that the matter involves determination of certain legal issues with regard to applicability of the exemption u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 r/w section 2(n) and Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005. Leading to the factual matrix of the case, this Commission observes that the Sacred Heart Convent School, Kohara Road, Machhiwara did not give their consent for disclosing the information to the appellant vide their objection letter dated 20-09-
2018 in response to the notice u/Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. On this point, the appellant has contended that he is seeking information in the larger public interest on behalf of the Parents Association (Regd.), Machhiwara as its Secretary and therefore, Sacred Heart Convent School, Kohara Road, Machhiwara cannot be treated as 'third party' u/Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, 2005 and therefore, the information should be disclosed to him. In this regard, it is apt to quote 'Section 2(n)' of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:-
"2(n):- "third party" means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority."
7. Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 which deals with the 'third party information' reads as under:-
"11. (1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any Page 2 of 6 information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:
Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.
(2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) to a third party in respect of any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the request under section 6, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation under sub-section (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof and give in writing the notice of his decision to the third party.
(4) A notice given under sub-section (3) shall include a statement that the third party to whom the notice is given is entitled to prefer an appeal under section 19 against the decision."
8. With regards to Section 2(n) r/w Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005, this Commission refers to the judgment dated 13-11-2019 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 & Ors. titled as CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, wherein, it has been observed as follows:-
"77...The definition of a "third party" includes a public authority. 'Third party information' is information which relates to or has been supplied by any other person (including a public authority) other than the Page 3 of 6 information applicant and has been treated as confidential by such third party."
9. According to section 2(n) of the RTI Act, 2005, 'third party' means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a 'public authority'. Therefore, the appellant's contention is devoid of any merit. In view of this, Sacred Heart Convent School, Kohara Road, Machhiwara being a 'separate legal entity' other than the appellant and the respondent herein is treated as 'third party' u/Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, 2005.
10. As per Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005, the moment CPIO puts in motion the third party notice intending to disclose the confidential information relating to or supplied by the third party, he gives a chance to the third party to voice any objections which could be based on the exemptions under the RTI Act, 2005. In this case, the CPIO has accepted the objections raised by the third party and has further formed an opinion not to disclose this information. Henceforth, this Commission proceeds to decide the matter on two counts:- (i) whether the information is exempted and, (ii) whether the appellant has shown any larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of the third party.
11. With regards to the applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 regarding non-disclosure of the Balance Sheet and the Audit Report of the Sacred Heart Convent School, Kohara Road, Machhiwara, this Commission refers to the judgment dated 03-10-2012 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 titled as Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission & ors., wherein, it has been held as under:-
"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."
12. The appellant has contended that Sacred Heart Convent School, Kohara Road, Machhiwara is an educational institution which performs 'public activity' and therefore, its Balance Sheet and the Audit Report submitted to the income tax department should be disclosed to him. In this context, this Commission refers to the judgment dated 11-06-2015 rendered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Page 4 of 6 Writ Petition No. 8753 of 2013 titled as Shailesh Gandhi v. The Central Information Commission, wherein, it has been observed as follows:-
"16...The Petitioner possibly being aware of the said position has therefore sought to contend that filing of the Income Tax Returns is a public activity. I am afraid the said contention is thoroughly misconceived as filing of Income Tax Returns can be 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 pre-requisites for the same are satisfied."
13. The appellant has not established any larger public interest in the matter and hence, in light of the legal principles enunciated in the aforesaid cases, this Commission is of the opinion that the appellant is seeking exempted information which need not be disclosed.
14. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
15. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कु मार गुप्ता) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date:13-08-2020 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानित सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमाग), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, O/o. The Income Tax Officer-(Exemption), ITO & CPIO (Exmp.), Ward-Jalandhar, Income Tax Department, Distt-Jalandhar, Punjab.
2. Mr. Parveen Kumar Page 6 of 6