Gora Chand Chatterjee vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 27 April, 2023

[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Gora Chand Chatterjee vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 27 April, 2023

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/CCITK/A/2022/136362

Gora Chand Chatterjee                                     ......अपीलकता/Appellant


                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम

CPIO,
O/o DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX, CENTRAL
CIRCLE-4(4), KOLKATA, RTI
CELL, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA,
110, SHANTI PALLY, E M BYPASS,
KOLKATA-700107, WEST BENGAL.                            .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                     :   25/04/2023
Date of Decision                    :   25/04/2023

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :              Saroj Punhani

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on            :   08/04/2022
CPIO replied on                     :   10/05/2022
First appeal filed on               :   01/06/2022
First Appellate Authority's order   :   23/06/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :   26/07/2022

Information sought

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.04.2022 seeking information as under:

"Please Find attached herewith the copy of the letter of DDIT (Inv) unit 2(4) Kolkata dt.2/8/2021, this was transferred to your office U/S 6(3) of the RTI Act. ln this regard I am further to inform you that, The total Investigation/enquiry against the cattle Smuggler Enamul Hawk @ Bishu SK @ Khudu of PS- Lalgola dist Murshidabad was done on the basis of my Information. I unearth the secret sources of his unauthorized Income &om the illegal Cattle smuggling and informed to the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Aaykar Bhavan, Kolkata the Ministry of finance and the Prime Minister's office. Required Information:-

(I) Date from which the above investigation of evasion of lncome Tax against the said Enamul started by the Income Tax department Kolkata.

(II) The total amount of Black Money related with the illegal Cattle export recovered from the said Enamul.

(il) Total amount of Income Tax including Fine & Penalty recovered from Enamul Hawk, in relation to the illegal Cattle Smuggling / export to Bangladesh since 2015 to till date.

(IV) Total amount of Income Tax including Fine & Penalty recovered from the associates of Enamul Hawk namely Pintu SK, Mantu SK etc. in connection with Cattle Smuggling.

(V) List of the total undeclared property/ Seizure list of the above named persons."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 10.05.2022 stating as under:

"The request for disclosure of information as stated above is examined. The information sought for contains information passed on to this charge from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation) under the DGIT(Investigation), Kolkata, Sikkim and NER for the purpose of assessment of relevant person, viz, Enamul Haque who falls within the income tax jurisdiction of this charge, Income Tax Returns with annexures etc., filed by such person and all other supporting details thereof, and the result of the relevant income tax assessments. The income tax jurisdictions of the persons viz, permanent Account Number. Apparently, no person called Pintu SK and Mantu SK is assessed in this charge, and therefore, no information relating to these two persons are available in this office.

However, the information sought for by the applicant such as assessed incomes, income tax demands, penalties etc., are personal information and are exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Any information held by the Income Tax Department in respect of any assessee assessed in this charge is also exempt under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act as the information is held in fiduciary capacity.

A plain reading of Section 24(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 indicates that the provisions of the RTI Act would not be applicable to Intelligence and Security Organizations as specified in the Second Schedule, Further, any information received from such organizations falls under the exclusionary clause of Section 24(1) of the Act. This office, viz, Central Circle -- 4(4), Kolkata is not one of the offices, public organizations which are specified under the Second Schedule; but the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) is. Thus, any information received from the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) by any Public Authority, such as, this office, viz, Central Circle -- 4(4), Kolkata would also fall within the exclusionary provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act, Indisputably, the information sought for by the applicant emanates from the information received from Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation). Thus, this office would be justified in denying such information to the applicant, Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CBDT Vs. Satya Narain Shulka [W.P.(C) 5547/2017 & CM No. 23333/2017] (2018).

Further, the information sought for by the applicant contains 'third party information' within the meaning of Section 11 of Right to Information Act, 2005. Therefore, notice u/s 11 of RTI Act was served on the concerned person, viz, Enamul Hague PAN: AAZPH9775J on 25.04.2022 from F. No DCIT/CC-- 4(4)/Kol/RTI/2022- 23/444 and a response vide letter dated 30.04.2022 was received. The said third party submitted that he has objection in such disclosure of information as the information. being privy to the third party as well as to the Income Tax Department since the information sought for is not in the larger public interest.

The Hon'ble Supreme court of India in Bihar Public Service Commission vs Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (2012) 13 SCC 61 has held that the statutory exemption provided under Section 8 of the RTI Act is the rule and only in exceptional circumstances of larger public interest the information would be 3 disclosed. It appears that in this instant case, the disclosure of information sought for has no discernible element of larger public interest.

In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the information sought for by the applicant is exempt for disclosure under RTI Act. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 24.11.2014 in Dr. Naresh Trepan vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta (WM) 85/2010 & GM No. 256/ 2010 & 5560/2011) where an informer to the income tax department filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information and all the records available with the Income Tax Department in respect of nine asses for various assessment years.

The decisions of the CPIO are made u/s 7(1) of RTI Act 2005 in respect of the application made by the applicant under Section 6(1) of Right to information Act, 2005 on 11.04.2022."

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.06.2022. FAA's order, dated 23.06.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through video conference.

Respondent: Amit Kumar Barua, DCIT & CPIO present through audio conference.

The Appellant narrated the factual background of the information sought for in the instant RTI Application as stated in the Second Appeal text and argued as under:

"Enamul Hawk is a hard-core criminal, evader of huge income tax, owner of huge illegally acquired property and having international terrorist connection, so he cannot treated as normal Income Tax Payee. The total investigation all over lndia against Enamul was initiated by the lncome Tax, CBI and ED and the recovery of huge unauthorized/illegal lncome Tax evaded money was on the basis of my information . And if no lnformaution would have been provided by me; there was no scope by the lncome Tax or other department to proceed for any 4 investigation and recovery of huge amount of illegal money and lncome Tax. As I have to give evidence before the Court to proof the offence related with lncome tax and other department. As it is related to the payment of informer reward. As all the investigation by the lT department against Enamul in relation to my Complaint/lnformation has been completed by the lncome Tax lnvestigation unit. As the lncome Tax Assessment unit is not falling under the provision of exemption under RTI Act and not mentioned in the 2nd schedule. As the information sought was only in relation to the unauthorized and illegal money acquired from the illegal cattle export to Bangladesh; for which the information was provided by me. it is therefore, prayed before the Hon'ble 2nd Appellate Authority considering the above facts to direct the CPIO to provide all information as sought by me, for the sake of higher public interest and to give evidence before the court to proof the offence committed by the said Enamul."

The CPIO reiterated the detailed reply provided to the Appellant and also urged for the bench to peruse his written submissions, which in substance was a reiteration of their reply of 10.05.2022.

Decision:

The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the reply of the CPIO on the following lines is appropriate in the matter and the discussion beyond that citing the modalities of the applicability of Section 24(1) of the RTI Act by the CPIO does not warrant any consideration:

"However, the information sought for by the applicant such as assessed incomes, income tax demands, penalties etc., are personal information and are exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act."

While, the Commission has considered the detailed grounds of the Second Appeal as well as the submissions of the Appellant during the hearing, the fact remains that the details of tax liabilities sought for by him relate to third parties and disclosure of the same stands exempted 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 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..."

Further, 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 "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."

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]".

Now, across the length and breadth of this appeal, the Appellant has not argued larger public interest in the disclosure of the information, rather has harped on the fact that he was the informer and therefore has a right to the desired information so that, if required, he can supplement the case further in Court against Enamul Hawk and that it concerns his informer reward. The same does not translate into larger public interest espoused in any of the above referred contexts even if the Commission by way of liberal interpretation were to read the said aspect into the matter.

Having observed as above, no relief can be ordered in the matter.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) 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 Gora Chand Chatterjee 147, Lake Town, Block-B, Kolkata-700089, West Bengal.

West Bengal, Kolkata,700089 9 के ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067 File No : CIC/CCITK/A/2022/136362 Gora Chand Chatterjee ......अपीलकता/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO, O/o DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(4), KOLKATA, RTI CELL, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 110, SHANTI PALLY, E M BYPASS, KOLKATA-700107, WEST BENGAL. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 25/04/2023 Date of Decision : 25/04/2023 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on            :   08/04/2022
CPIO replied on                     :   10/05/2022
First appeal filed on               :   01/06/2022
First Appellate Authority's order   :   23/06/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :   26/07/2022

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.04.2022 seeking information as under:

"Please Find attached herewith the copy of the letter of DDIT (Inv) unit 2(4) Kolkata dt.2/8/2021, this was transferred to your office U/S 6(3) of the RTI Act. ln this regard I am further to inform you that, The total Investigation/enquiry against the cattle Smuggler Enamul Hawk @ Bishu SK @ Khudu of PS- Lalgola dist Murshidabad was done on the basis of my Information. I unearth the secret sources of his unauthorized Income &om the illegal Cattle smuggling and informed to the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Aaykar Bhavan, Kolkata the Ministry of finance and the Prime Minister's office. Required Information:-

(I) Date from which the above investigation of evasion of lncome Tax against the said Enamul started by the Income Tax department Kolkata.

(II) The total amount of Black Money related with the illegal Cattle export recovered from the said Enamul.

(il) Total amount of Income Tax including Fine & Penalty recovered from Enamul Hawk, in relation to the illegal Cattle Smuggling / export to Bangladesh since 2015 to till date.

(IV) Total amount of Income Tax including Fine & Penalty recovered from the associates of Enamul Hawk namely Pintu SK, Mantu SK etc. in connection with Cattle Smuggling.

(V) List of the total undeclared property/ Seizure list of the above named persons."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 10.05.2022 stating as under:

"The request for disclosure of information as stated above is examined. The information sought for contains information passed on to this charge from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation) under the DGIT(Investigation), Kolkata, Sikkim and NER for the purpose of assessment of relevant person, viz, Enamul Haque who falls within the income tax jurisdiction of this charge, Income Tax Returns with annexures etc., filed by such person and all other supporting details thereof, and the result of the relevant income tax assessments. The income tax jurisdictions of the persons viz, permanent Account Number. Apparently, no person called Pintu SK and Mantu SK is assessed in this charge, and therefore, no information relating to these two persons are available in this office.

However, the information sought for by the applicant such as assessed incomes, income tax demands, penalties etc., are personal information and are exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Any information held by the Income Tax Department in respect of any assessee assessed in this charge is also exempt under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act as the information is held in fiduciary capacity.

A plain reading of Section 24(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 indicates that the provisions of the RTI Act would not be applicable to Intelligence and Security Organizations as specified in the Second Schedule, Further, any information received from such organizations falls under the exclusionary clause of Section 24(1) of the Act. This office, viz, Central Circle -- 4(4), Kolkata is not one of the offices, public organizations which are specified under the Second Schedule; but the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) is. Thus, any information received from the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) by any Public Authority, such as, this office, viz, Central Circle -- 4(4), Kolkata would also fall within the exclusionary provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act, Indisputably, the information sought for by the applicant emanates from the information received from Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation). Thus, this office would be justified in denying such information to the applicant, Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CBDT Vs. Satya Narain Shulka [W.P.(C) 5547/2017 & CM No. 23333/2017] (2018).

Further, the information sought for by the applicant contains 'third party information' within the meaning of Section 11 of Right to Information Act, 2005. Therefore, notice u/s 11 of RTI Act was served on the concerned person, viz, Enamul Hague PAN: AAZPH9775J on 25.04.2022 from F. No DCIT/CC-- 4(4)/Kol/RTI/2022- 23/444 and a response vide letter dated 30.04.2022 was received. The said third party submitted that he has objection in such disclosure of information as the information. being privy to the third party as well as to the Income Tax Department since the information sought for is not in the larger public interest.

The Hon'ble Supreme court of India in Bihar Public Service Commission vs Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (2012) 13 SCC 61 has held that the statutory exemption provided under Section 8 of the RTI Act is the rule and only in exceptional circumstances of larger public interest the information would be 3 disclosed. It appears that in this instant case, the disclosure of information sought for has no discernible element of larger public interest.

In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the information sought for by the applicant is exempt for disclosure under RTI Act. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 24.11.2014 in Dr. Naresh Trepan vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta (WM) 85/2010 & GM No. 256/ 2010 & 5560/2011) where an informer to the income tax department filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information and all the records available with the Income Tax Department in respect of nine asses for various assessment years.

The decisions of the CPIO are made u/s 7(1) of RTI Act 2005 in respect of the application made by the applicant under Section 6(1) of Right to information Act, 2005 on 11.04.2022."

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.06.2022. FAA's order, dated 23.06.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through video conference.

Respondent: Amit Kumar Barua, DCIT & CPIO present through audio conference.

The Appellant narrated the factual background of the information sought for in the instant RTI Application as stated in the Second Appeal text and argued as under:

"Enamul Hawk is a hard-core criminal, evader of huge income tax, owner of huge illegally acquired property and having international terrorist connection, so he cannot treated as normal Income Tax Payee. The total investigation all over lndia against Enamul was initiated by the lncome Tax, CBI and ED and the recovery of huge unauthorized/illegal lncome Tax evaded money was on the basis of my information . And if no lnformaution would have been provided by me; there was no scope by the lncome Tax or other department to proceed for any 4 investigation and recovery of huge amount of illegal money and lncome Tax. As I have to give evidence before the Court to proof the offence related with lncome tax and other department. As it is related to the payment of informer reward. As all the investigation by the lT department against Enamul in relation to my Complaint/lnformation has been completed by the lncome Tax lnvestigation unit. As the lncome Tax Assessment unit is not falling under the provision of exemption under RTI Act and not mentioned in the 2nd schedule. As the information sought was only in relation to the unauthorized and illegal money acquired from the illegal cattle export to Bangladesh; for which the information was provided by me. it is therefore, prayed before the Hon'ble 2nd Appellate Authority considering the above facts to direct the CPIO to provide all information as sought by me, for the sake of higher public interest and to give evidence before the court to proof the offence committed by the said Enamul."

The CPIO reiterated the detailed reply provided to the Appellant and also urged for the bench to peruse his written submissions, which in substance was a reiteration of their reply of 10.05.2022.

Decision:

The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the reply of the CPIO on the following lines is appropriate in the matter and the discussion beyond that citing the modalities of the applicability of Section 24(1) of the RTI Act by the CPIO does not warrant any consideration:

"However, the information sought for by the applicant such as assessed incomes, income tax demands, penalties etc., are personal information and are exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act."

While, the Commission has considered the detailed grounds of the Second Appeal as well as the submissions of the Appellant during the hearing, the fact remains that the details of tax liabilities sought for by him relate to third parties and disclosure of the same stands exempted 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:.."

"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..."

Further, 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 "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."

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]".

Having observed as above, no relief can be ordered in the matter.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

RTI application filed on            :   08/04/2022
CPIO replied on                     :   10/05/2022
First appeal filed on               :   01/06/2022
First Appellate Authority's order   :   23/06/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :   26/07/2022

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.04.2022 seeking information as under:

"Please Find attached herewith the copy of the letter of DDIT (Inv) unit 2(4) Kolkata dt.2/8/2021, this was transferred to your office U/S 6(3) of the RTI Act. ln this regard I am further to inform you that, The total Investigation/enquiry against the cattle Smuggler Enamul Hawk @ Bishu SK @ Khudu of PS- Lalgola dist Murshidabad was done on the basis of my Information. I unearth the secret sources of his unauthorized Income &om the illegal Cattle smuggling and informed to the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Aaykar Bhavan, Kolkata the Ministry of finance and the Prime Minister's office. Required Information:-

(I) Date from which the above investigation of evasion of lncome Tax against the said Enamul started by the Income Tax department Kolkata.

(II) The total amount of Black Money related with the illegal Cattle export recovered from the said Enamul.

(il) Total amount of Income Tax including Fine & Penalty recovered from Enamul Hawk, in relation to the illegal Cattle Smuggling / export to Bangladesh since 2015 to till date.

(IV) Total amount of Income Tax including Fine & Penalty recovered from the associates of Enamul Hawk namely Pintu SK, Mantu SK etc. in connection with Cattle Smuggling.

(V) List of the total undeclared property/ Seizure list of the above named persons."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 10.05.2022 stating as under:

"The request for disclosure of information as stated above is examined. The information sought for contains information passed on to this charge from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation) under the DGIT(Investigation), Kolkata, Sikkim and NER for the purpose of assessment of relevant person, viz, Enamul Haque who falls within the income tax jurisdiction of this charge, Income Tax Returns with annexures etc., filed by such person and all other supporting details thereof, and the result of the relevant income tax assessments. The income tax jurisdictions of the persons viz, permanent Account Number. Apparently, no person called Pintu SK and Mantu SK is assessed in this charge, and therefore, no information relating to these two persons are available in this office.

However, the information sought for by the applicant such as assessed incomes, income tax demands, penalties etc., are personal information and are exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Any information held by the Income Tax Department in respect of any assessee assessed in this charge is also exempt under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act as the information is held in fiduciary capacity.

A plain reading of Section 24(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 indicates that the provisions of the RTI Act would not be applicable to Intelligence and Security Organizations as specified in the Second Schedule, Further, any information received from such organizations falls under the exclusionary clause of Section 24(1) of the Act. This office, viz, Central Circle -- 4(4), Kolkata is not one of the offices, public organizations which are specified under the Second Schedule; but the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) is. Thus, any information received from the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) by any Public Authority, such as, this office, viz, Central Circle -- 4(4), Kolkata would also fall within the exclusionary provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act, Indisputably, the information sought for by the applicant emanates from the information received from Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation). Thus, this office would be justified in denying such information to the applicant, Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CBDT Vs. Satya Narain Shulka [W.P.(C) 5547/2017 & CM No. 23333/2017] (2018).

Further, the information sought for by the applicant contains 'third party information' within the meaning of Section 11 of Right to Information Act, 2005. Therefore, notice u/s 11 of RTI Act was served on the concerned person, viz, Enamul Hague PAN: AAZPH9775J on 25.04.2022 from F. No DCIT/CC-- 4(4)/Kol/RTI/2022- 23/444 and a response vide letter dated 30.04.2022 was received. The said third party submitted that he has objection in such disclosure of information as the information. being privy to the third party as well as to the Income Tax Department since the information sought for is not in the larger public interest.

The Hon'ble Supreme court of India in Bihar Public Service Commission vs Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (2012) 13 SCC 61 has held that the statutory exemption provided under Section 8 of the RTI Act is the rule and only in exceptional circumstances of larger public interest the information would be 3 disclosed. It appears that in this instant case, the disclosure of information sought for has no discernible element of larger public interest.

In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the information sought for by the applicant is exempt for disclosure under RTI Act. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 24.11.2014 in Dr. Naresh Trepan vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta (WM) 85/2010 & GM No. 256/ 2010 & 5560/2011) where an informer to the income tax department filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information and all the records available with the Income Tax Department in respect of nine asses for various assessment years.

The decisions of the CPIO are made u/s 7(1) of RTI Act 2005 in respect of the application made by the applicant under Section 6(1) of Right to information Act, 2005 on 11.04.2022."

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.06.2022. FAA's order, dated 23.06.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through video conference.

Respondent: Amit Kumar Barua, DCIT & CPIO present through audio conference.

The Appellant narrated the factual background of the information sought for in the instant RTI Application as stated in the Second Appeal text and argued as under:

"Enamul Hawk is a hard-core criminal, evader of huge income tax, owner of huge illegally acquired property and having international terrorist connection, so he cannot treated as normal Income Tax Payee. The total investigation all over lndia against Enamul was initiated by the lncome Tax, CBI and ED and the recovery of huge unauthorized/illegal lncome Tax evaded money was on the basis of my information . And if no lnformaution would have been provided by me; there was no scope by the lncome Tax or other department to proceed for any 4 investigation and recovery of huge amount of illegal money and lncome Tax. As I have to give evidence before the Court to proof the offence related with lncome tax and other department. As it is related to the payment of informer reward. As all the investigation by the lT department against Enamul in relation to my Complaint/lnformation has been completed by the lncome Tax lnvestigation unit. As the lncome Tax Assessment unit is not falling under the provision of exemption under RTI Act and not mentioned in the 2nd schedule. As the information sought was only in relation to the unauthorized and illegal money acquired from the illegal cattle export to Bangladesh; for which the information was provided by me. it is therefore, prayed before the Hon'ble 2nd Appellate Authority considering the above facts to direct the CPIO to provide all information as sought by me, for the sake of higher public interest and to give evidence before the court to proof the offence committed by the said Enamul."

The CPIO reiterated the detailed reply provided to the Appellant and also urged for the bench to peruse his written submissions, which in substance was a reiteration of their reply of 10.05.2022.

Decision:

The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the reply of the CPIO on the following lines is appropriate in the matter and the discussion beyond that citing the modalities of the applicability of Section 24(1) of the RTI Act by the CPIO does not warrant any consideration:

"However, the information sought for by the applicant such as assessed incomes, income tax demands, penalties etc., are personal information and are exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act."

While, the Commission has considered the detailed grounds of the Second Appeal as well as the submissions of the Appellant during the hearing, the fact remains that the details of tax liabilities sought for by him relate to third parties and disclosure of the same stands exempted 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:.."

"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..."

Further, 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 "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."

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]".

Having observed as above, no relief can be ordered in the matter.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

West Bengal, Kolkata,700089 9

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission