Dr. Ravi Jindal vs Director Genral Of Income Tax (Inv.) ... on 9 June, 2020
7. This Commission takes note of the decree of divorce indicated by the
appellant. Now, the legal issue to be decided herein is whether the details of the
income tax returns of Dr. Ratika can be disclosed to the appellant at this stage
under the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant has alleged about wrong information being
furnished by Dr. Ratika before the Ld. JMIC, Patiala but he could not produce any
credible evidence to rebut his presumption. Therefore, personal information of an
individual cannot be sacrificed merely based on conjectures and surmises of the
RTI applicant. Moreover, this Commission cannot assume the role of an
adjudicating authority with regard to the veracity of the affidavit sworn before the
Page 2 of 7
Ld. JMIC, Patiala. Hence, the contention put forth by the appellant for disclosure
of the third party information is being outrightly rejected. No larger public interest
has been established in the matter. The order dated 14-01-2015 of the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in FAO 369/1996 titled as Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar
Sharma and the CIC's order dated 03-02-2015 in CIC/SA/A/2014/000433 titled as
Prashnsa Sharma v. Delhi Transco Ltd are not applicable to the facts of the case, as
these decisions do not speak about the disclosure of the income tax returns of third
party.