Central Information Commission
Rachit Mittal vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 18 July, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CCITM/A/2021/114009
Rachit Mittal ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Income Tax Officer,
Ward 34(1)(4), Mumbai, RTI Cell,
Room No. 806, 8th Floor, Kautilya
Bhavan, C-41 to C-43, G Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai-400051, Maharashtra. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12/07/2022
Date of Decision : 12/07/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13/01/2020
CPIO replied on : 24/02/2020
First appeal filed on : 10/03/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 14/07/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 31/03/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.01.2020 seeking the following information:1
"a) Whether any action is taken on the TEP application by Income Tax Department (Yes/No) a.1) If no, please provide me reasons for not initiating any action with supporting documents.
a.2) If yes, kindly provide the reference no of my TEP and to which department TEP has been forwarded for further action. Also, please provide the certified copy of preliminary investigations / assessments those are initiated/made on TEP.
b) Whether Mr. Umesh Khandelwal and Mrs. Harshali Mittal ever filed any income tax return mentioning the details of source of alleged money and alleged costly items given by them in marriage and after marriage as admitted in writing in FIR submitted with TEP and maintaining other luxuries of life. (Yes/No)
c) Whether they have paid income tax and wealth tax on the alleged Cash/Jewellery expenses (Yes/No)
d) Kindly provide me the name, designation and address of officer who is investigating the TEP.
e) Kindly provide me the name, designation and address of the officer who is providing this information along with the details of the appellant authority as there is every apprehension that the information being provided to me will not be relevant & will be misleading."
The CPIO transferred the RTI application on 27.01.2021 to the CPIO/ the Income Tax Officer, Ward- 34(1)(4), Mumbai under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for providing information directly to the appellant.
Subsequently, CPIO/ the Income Tax Officer, Ward- 34(1)(4), Mumbai furnished para wise reply to the appellant on 24.02.2021 stating as follows:-
Query No. a, a.1 & a.2:-
"Yes. The TEP filed by Rachit Mittal, the applicant before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore, Madhya Pradesh on 21.10.2019 is forwarded to the charge of the Income Tax Officer-34(1)(4), Mumbai on 27.01.2020. The TEP filed by the applicant is under verification stage.2
Query No. b:-
The applicant has sought information of third party i.e. Mrs. Harshali Mittal, who is assessed in this charge. The information called for by the applicant by no stretch of reasoning can be called as information of general public utility. As a matter of fact the information called for by the applicant of third party is in the custody of the undersigned in the fiduciary (trusteeship) capacity within the meaning of section 8(1)(e) of Right to Information Act, 2005. It is also necessary to mention that the information called by the applicant clearly gets covered by section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Xx Therefore, on this ground the applicant deserves no information and therefore his request stands dismissed.
Query No. c:-
The applicant has sought information of third party i.e. Mrs. Harshali Mittal, who is assessed in this charge. The information called for by the applicant by no stretch of reasoning can be called as information of general public utility. As a matter of fact the information called for by the applicant of third party is in the custody of the undersigned in the fiduciary (trusteeship) capacity within the meaning of section 8(1)(e) of Right to Information Act, 2005. It is also necessary to mention that the information called by the applicant clearly gets covered by section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Xx Further, on perusal of the application under reference it has come to light that the dowry matter is going on, between the applicant and the party, Mrs. Harshali Mittal and the matter is before the court. Through this information it appears that applicant is trying to settle personal score and also personal interest rather than the serving the general public interest.
Therefore, on this ground the applicant deserves no information and therefore his request stands dismissed.
Query No. d & e:-
Deepak Kumar Sinha, income Tax Officer- 34(1)(4), Mumbai, ROOM No. 806' 8th Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai
- 400 051."3
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.03.2020. FAA's order dated 14.07.2020 held as under:-
".........it is seen from the reply of CPIO dt. 24.O2.2O2O that the applicant has already been informed by the CPIO that TEP filed by the applicant is under verification stage. Regarding, income-details of Mrs. Harshali Mittal, the assessee has not submitted consent of the assessee for providing information, Since, the information sought is personal in nature and, also a third party information, it is exempt u/s 8(1)(e) & 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the information sought can not be provided."
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 intra-video conference. Respondent: Not present.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information has not been provided to him. He further asserted that the information sought for by him is in the context of a false case of dowry and domestic violence registered against him by his wife and in-laws and since the State invests the funds of the public exchequer in instituting such cases before the Court of Law, there is larger public interest in the disclosure of the information. He furthermore relied on the contents of his Second Appeal wherein he has relied on certain earlier orders of the Commission allowing disclosure of information of identical nature to the spouses and also harped on the delay in finalising the action on the averred TEP.
The Commission took on record the request for adjournment of the hearing sought for by the CPIO, however, the same was not allowed.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the status of the TEP informed by the Appellant suffices the subject matter of the instant RTI Application. As for the other information sought for in the RTI 4 Application, it is pertinent to note that the Appellant has largely raised speculative queries that do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and the same also concerns the income tax returns of third parties, disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. In this regard, his attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, with respect to the aspect of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the attention of the Appellant is 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:5
"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 While, 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 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.."
Upon a conjoint consideration of the foregoing observations, no action is warranted 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 / 6