Central Information Commission
Mr.Rohit M Udani Huf vs Cbdt on 29 December, 2010
Central Information Commission
Room No.296, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama
Place, New Delhi110066
Telefax:01126180532 & 01126107254 websitecic.gov.in
Appeal : No. CIC/LS/A/2010/001079DS
Appellant /Complainant : Sh. Rohit M Udani Huf,
Mumbai
(Through videoconferencing)
Public Authority : Income Tax Department,
Mumbai
Date of Hearing : 29/12/2010
Date of Decision : 29/12/2010
Facts:
1. Shri Sanjay Shah and others (information seekers) preferred RTI request dated 1 December 2009 before the CPIO, Income Tax Office Ward - 14 (1) (3), Mumbai vide which they sought information pertaining to tax returns filed by Rohit M Udani (HUF) along with copy of the Assessment order passed by the I T O for the assessment year 2001 - 2002. The CPIO vide his order dated 15 January 2010 denied disclosure of third party information under section 8 (1) (j) of the Act after taking action as per the provisions of section 11 (1) of the Act. In response to this action, third party, vide letter dated 14 January 2010 did not give their consent for disclosure of this information and stated that invasion of privacy was unwarranted as no public interest was served in disclosure. They also stated that there were various legal disputes pending in various courts between the two parties and therefore it was all the more imperative that disclosure of the requested information should be denied.
2. The appellant preferred appeal dated 9 March 2010 before the First Appellate Authority which was adjudicated upon vide FAA order dated 17 March 2010. The order of the CPIO was quashed and the CPIO was directed to provide information to the appellant after giving notice of 21 days to the third party informing him of the date on which the CPIO intended to give information to the appellant. In his order the first appellate authority has stated as follows:
8. "I have considered the submissions and arguments of both the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case and I have arrived at the following conclusions.
8. 1 The information sought by the appellants in regard to the third party is about the alleged loans the third party itself has claimed to have given to the appellants. The third party has in this regard has lodged criminal proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in courts of law. The CPIO mentioned that the third party has filed a copy of the order passed by the honourable Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai wherein one of the appellants had been convicted.
8. 2 The appellants have given the information regarding alleged cash loans claimed to be given by the third party to the ITO. 14 (1) (3) (assessing Officer of the third party) in the form of tax evasion petition (TEP for short) requesting for appropriate action under the Income Tax Act,
8. 3 The appellants now are under the RTI asking for the copy of assessment order passed by the ITO. 14 (1) (3) after doing investigation pursuant to the above TEP received by him and copy of the submissions (if any) made by the third party in the above assessment proceedings.
8. 4 Since the information asked is regarding the transactions alleged by the thirdparty itself to have had with appellants the matter cannot be termed as personal and in no way involved invasion of privacy,
8. 5 The information requested for has not been submitted by the thirdparty voluntarily or neither has been held by the CPIO in a fiduciary capacity. The above information requested for -
- - are because of the notices issued by the ITO 14 (1) (3) and hence they are also related to or result of a public activity."
3. The thirdparty represented by Shri Rohit M Udani filed appeal before the Commission against the above order of the First Appellate Authority ordering disclosure. The matter was heard today. The applicant of the RTI application (information seeker) and the thirdparty (the appellant in this case) were present as above. No one appeared on behalf of the Income Tax Department.
Decision
4. After hearing both sides and on perusing the RTI application, it is observed that nowhere in the original application has the applicant made any reference to the TEP submitted by them to the Department. Therefore in view of the Commission it is not correct to link the TEP with the RTI application. The Commission wishes to make a distinction between the two documents and orders as follows:
"On the basis of previous decisions of the Commission and in particular the fivemember bench decision in the case of Milap Choraria (file number CIC/AT/A/2008/00628) it is held that ITR is personal information and not disclosable in terms of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. This decision finds echo in this case as well.
However in view of the facts recorded in the order of the First Appellate Authority at para 8.2 and 8.3 of his order, CPIO is directed to provide information to the information seekers (Shri Sanjay Shah and others) limited to the fact whether the information provided to the ITO( 14(1)(3) was found to be true/partially true/unsubstantiated after the conclusion of the investigation initiated by the Department following receipt of the TEP".
5. Information as above to be provided within three weeks of conclusion of the investigation.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu) Information Commissioner (DS) Authenticated true copy:
(T. K. Mohapatra) Under Secretary & Dy. Registrar Tel No. 01126105027 Copy to:
1. Shri Rohim M Udani HUF, 642, J.S.S. Road, Vazira Mansion Dhobi Talao, Mumbai400021
2. The Central Information Officer, Income Tax Office14(1)3, Earnest House Nariman Point, Mumbai400002.
3. The Appellate Authority, Income Tax Office14(1)3, Earnest House Nariman Point, Mumbai400002.