Central Information Commission
Mrs C Parak vs Cbdt on 8 June, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/004193/BS/10532
08 June 2016
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. S C Parekh,
R/o. Parekh Bhavan, New Plot,
Amalner, Tehsil - Amalner,
Dist - Jalgaon.
Respondent : CPIO / ITO Ward - 2(3),
Income Tax Department,
O/o the ITO Ward - 1(3),
Old Bhikamchand Jain Market,
Jalgaon
ITO(HQ) System, Mumbai
Income Tax Department
O/o the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Room No - 380, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan,
M. K. Road, Mumbai - 400020
RTI application filed on : 30/12/2013
PIO replied on : 16/01/2014
First appeal filed on : 10/02/2014
First Appellate Authority order : No Order
Second Appeal dated : 23/06/2014
Information sought:
a) The copies of the Income Tax Returns etc duly filed by and/or on behalf the M/s New Vijay Brandy House, Jalgaon for the AY 1993 to 2014.
b) The copies of the all documents filed/submitted in support of the Income Tax Returns etc duly filed by and/or on behalf the M/s New Vijay Brandy House, Jalgaon for the AY 1993 to 2014.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Bhagwan Patil appellant's representative through VC Respondent: Mr. Ravi Mool CPIO through VC The CPIO stated that the appellant in his RTI application dated 30/12/2013 has sought information relating to income tax returns of M/s. New Vijay Brandy House and they had carried out the process as outlined under Section 11 of the RTI Act, however, the assessee has objected to the disclosure. He further stated that the information is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI as no larger public purpose has been demonstrated by the appellant to justify its disclosure.
The appellant's representative requested for adjournment stating that the appellant is hospitalized.Page 1 of 2
Interim Decision notice:
As requested by the appellant's representative the matter is adjourned for 08/06/2016 at 03.45 PM.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Arvind Tiwari appellant's representative through VC Respondent: Mr. Ravi Mool CPIO through VC The appellant's representative stated that the appellant's name appears as a partner in the shop and establishment licence issued to M/s. New Vijay Brandy House, however, the respondents have rejected the RTI application on the ground that the applicant is a third party. The CPIO stated that as per records of the department there are only two partners of the firm and the appellant is not a partner and therefore, the information relates to third party. The appellant's representative submitted that the licence was granted in the year 1973 in the name of the appellant and subsequently Shri Avinash Kulkrarni & Shri Shamkant Kulkarni were added as partners. He further submitted that there was a dispute between the partners and the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 26/03/2012 held that Sh. S C Parekh is the original licensee and other partners have no right to the business.
Decision Notice:
Section 2(n) of the RTI Act reads as under:
"'third party' means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority."
In the matter at hand the appellant is seeking copies of ITR of M/s. New Vijay Brandy House and as per department's records the appellant's name does not appear as a partner. Thus, he is clearly seeking third party information. The fact that the licence issued in 1973 (under the Shop & Establishment Act) was in the name of the appellant does not in any way dilute third party's right.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande [decision dated 03/10/2012 - SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012] has held that information relating to income tax matters of an assessee is "personal information" which stands exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless the CPIO is satisfied that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
In the matter at hand the appellant's representative has not established that the information sought is for larger public purpose. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the respondent's decision.
The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 2 of 2