Central Information Commission
Mukesh Shukla vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 16 November, 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/CCITD/A/2021/153420
Mukesh Shukla ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Income Tax Office Ward
50(1), RTI Cell, Room No.
1408, 14th Floor, Block E-2,
Dr.S P Mukherjee Civic Center,
Minto Road, New Delhi-110002. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15/11/2022
Date of Decision : 15/11/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25/06/2021
CPIO replied on : 11/08/2021
First appeal filed on : 15/09/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : 13/10/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10/12/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.06.2021 seeking the following information regarding his wife, Seema Shukla on the allegation that - "the assessee has filed her interim maintenance application u/s.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Hon'ble Principal Judge, Family Court (Tees Hazari 1 Courts, Delhi wherein she, with the sole intention to mislead the Hon'ble Court for getting wrongful gain and relief in her interim maintenance application, knowingly lied on oath in her lnterim Maintenance application along with Detailed lncome Affidavit and various connected pleadings & applications filed during the maintenance proceedings as well as collateral proceedings by suppressing and concealing the true and relevant complete facts and making false declarations that she was earning meagre amount or unemployed, did not own any immovable property, and had only two operational bank account.....
xxx xxx A. Whether the Assessee has been filing the Income Tax Return continuously from the Assessment Year 2014.2015 to 2020.2021 respectively. If yes, kindly provide me the certified copies of the ITRs filed by her for the same.
B. If the answer of the point A in affirmative, then kindly provide me the information about the heads/ source of the income of the Assessee/Wife from the assessment year 2014-15 to 2020-2021 respectively.
C. Further if the answer of the point A in affirmative, then kindly disclose the GROSS TOTAL INCOME and NET TAXABLE INCOME of the Assessee/Wife from the assessment year 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020- 21 respectively-.
D. Kindly provide me the information about the deductions I exemption availed by her under the head of income from salary, Income from House Property, Income from Business & profession, Capital Gain and Income from other sources and under section 80 or under any provision of Income Tax Act and, E. Also about the remittances made to the Bank by way of loan installments & remittances made to the Income Tax Authority towards payment of the Income Tax for the aforesaid Assessment years (i.e. from2014-15 to 2020-21 respectively) and other details relating to contributions made to Provident Fund etc., if any.
F. Kindly disclose the details about the employer and its address wherefrom the Assessee was & is getting salary, during the Assessment year from 2014-15 to 2020-21 respectively.
G. Whether the Assessee has disclosed the following employer before income tax authority in her I.T.R.: i. CLINTUS NETWORK LTD. at Chhaterpur, Delhi, ii. LEADAGE LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. at Mahipalpur, Delhi, iii. GOLDEN COAST GLOBAL (I) PVT. LTD. at Dwarka, Delhi or any other. If yes, then in which Assessment Year?
2H. Kindly provide me the details of loan amount borrowed by the Assessee (if any) along with the detail of lending bank and the Bank account in which the loan amount was transferred.
I. Kindly provide me the details of her investments and credit cards disclosed in her ITR. Whether the Assessee has disclosed any purchase of Capital Nature Assets & any other Bank Account after the financial year 2014-15 onwards till the Assessment Year 2020-21 respectively.
J. Whether the Assessee has disclosed her Bank Account bearing no. 50100050999691 (opened in 2014) in HDFC Bank, IFSC Code - HDFC0001374, MICR Code-110240157 @ 89, Hemkunt Chambers, Nehru Place G 2 & 3, New Delhi - 110019 in her ITRs?
K. Whether the Assessee has disclosed her Bank Account bearing no. 102301524660 (opened in 2015) in ICICI Bank Ltd., IFSC Code - 1C1C0001023, MICR Code-110229106 @ D-1, Alaknanda Shopping Complex, New Delhi-110019 in her ITRs?
L. Kindly provide me the information about the Authority, Provision and Procedure before whom and how the complaint can be made about such a person who was & is earning handsome taxable income and also having taxable wealth in form of movable & immovable properties, BUT is escaping to pay the taxes or neither disclose true income & wealth nor intend to pay the taxes to the taxation authorities.
M. If any other remedy is available to me for the subject mentioned in above point no.
L, kindly provide me the details of the same with the concerned laws, Acts, byelaws or orders etc."
The CPIO denied information to the appellant on 11.08.2021 under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.09.2021. FAA's order dated 13.10.2021 upheld the reply of 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 intra-video conference.
Respondent: Not present.3
The Appellant stated that the CPIO has wrongly considered him as a third party even as he had relied upon a decision of the Commission in a similar matter wherein it was held that 'spouse is not a third party if the marriage subsists' and the generic details of the Net Taxable lncome/Gross lncome of the wife was allowed to be provided.
Decision:
This bench has dealt with cases bearing the same factual matrix and the stance that has been maintained by it so far is that the information sought for in the RTI Application pertains to the personal information of a third party and stands duly exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant(s) has been 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, in matters concerning the disputes of a husband and wife, the Commission is guided by a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter 4 of Vijay Prakash vs. Union of India (W.P. (C) 803/2009) dated 01.07.2009 wherein the Court observed that in private disputes such as the present one between a husband and wife "...The basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption (from disclosure) enacted under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be lifted or disturbed.."
However, in the recent past, by way of the continuing reliance placed by a staggering number of applicants on the decision dated 06.11.2020 of the Commission in the Rahmat Bano case, this bench is inclined to echo the same rationale and for the sake of clarity, relevant portion of the said decision wherein while making a reference to the ratio laid down in the Apex Court judgement in the Girish Ramachandra (supra) case it was held as under:
"However, making a distinction with the said judgment, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. in the matter of Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Pawan Kumar Jain and others W.A. No. 168/2015 and Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others W.A. No. 170/2015 dated 15.05.2018 had in a matter where the information seeker had sought the salary details of her husband from the employer held as under:
"While dealing with the Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellant and the respondent No.1 are husband and wife and as a wife she is entitled to know what remuneration the respondent No.1 is getting. Present case is distinguishable from the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) and therefore the law laid down by their Lordships in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) are not applicable in the present case. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No.341/2008. Similarly, the W.A. No.170/2015 is also allowed and the impugned order passed in W.P. No.1647/2008 is set aside."
8. Moreover, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in the matter of Rajesh Ramachandra Kidile vs. Maharashtra SIC and Ors in W.P. No. 1766 of 2016 dated 22.10.2018 held as under:
"8. Perusal of this application shows that the salary slips for the period mentioned in the application have been sought for by the Advocate. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the salary slips contain such details as deductions made from the salary, remittances made to the Bank by way of loan instalments, remittances made to the Income Tax 5 Authority towards part payment of the Income Tax for the concerned month and other details relating to contributions made to Provident Fund, etc. It is here that the information contained in the salary slips as having the characteristic of personal nature. Any information which discloses, as for example, remittances made to the Income tax Department towards discharge of tax liability or to the Bank towards discharge of loan liability would constitute the personal information and would encroach upon the privacy of the person. Therefore as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Girish Ramachandra Deshpande (supra) such an information could not be disclosed under the provisions of the RTI Act. This is all the more so when the information seeker is a person who is totally stranger in blood or marital relationship to the person whose information he wants to lay his hands on. It would have been a different matter, had the information been sought by the wife of the petitioner in order to support her contention in a litigation, which she filed against her husband. In a litigation, where the issue involved is of maintenance of wife, the information relating to the salary details no longer remain confined to the category of personal information concerning both husband and wife, which is available with the husband hence accessible by the wife. But in the present case, as stated earlier, the application has not been filed by the wife.
9. Then, by the application filed under the provisions of the RTI Act, information regarding mere gross salary of the petitioner has not been sought and what have been sought are the details if the salary such as amounts relating to gross salary, take home salary and also all the deductions from the gross salary. It is such nature of the information sought which takes the present case towards the category of exempted information.
10. All these aspects of the matter have not been considered by the authority below and, therefore, I find that its order is patently illegal, not sustainable in the eyes of law."
9. Taking into consideration the aforementioned analysis and the judgments of the Higher Courts, the Commission directs the respondent to inform the appellant about the generic details of the net taxable income/gross income of her husband held and available with the Public Authority for the period 2017- 2018, within a period of 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order. Emphasis Supplied 6
10. The details/copy of income tax returns and other personal information of third party need not to be disclosed to the appellant except as mentioned at para no. 9 above."
In pursuance of the Appellant's plea urging that the information is being requested in pursuance of a maintenance case, applying the same yardstick as applicable to a wife in such cases, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the "generic details of the net taxable income/gross income" of the wife for the specified time period as contained in the RTI Application to the Appellant free of cost within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance report to this effect shall be sent to the Commission by the CPIO immediately thereafter.
The Commission takes grave exception to the absence of the CPIO during the hearing without intimating any reasons thereof. The CPIO is hereby directed to send a written explanation in this regard to the Commission within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which stricter action may be initiated in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7