Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/001679-BJ. Case: B R Madhumala Vs CPIO, Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(3)(1). Central Information Commission

Case Number:Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/001679-BJ
Party Name:B R Madhumala Vs CPIO, Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(3)(1)
Judges:Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner
Issue:Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 11, 8(1), 8(1)(j)
Judgement Date:April 18, 2017
Court:Central Information Commission
 
FREE EXCERPT

Court Information Central Information Commission Cases
Judgment Date 18-Apr-2017
Party Details B R Madhumala Vs CPIO, Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(3)(1)
Case No Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/001679-BJ
Judges Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner
Acts Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 11, 8(1), 8(1)(j)

Decision

Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner

FACTS:

1. The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the ITRs of her husband Mr. D. Manju, Dy. Manager (Finance) M/s. Neo Foods Pvt. Ltd., for the Years 2012-2015 for producing the same before the Family Court, Shimoga.

2. The CPIO vide its letter dated 16.11.2015 informed the Appellant that the ITR details of the Assessee could be furnished only on the availability of his PAN No. which could not be traced despite telephonic calls made to the Assessee in this respect. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 11.12.2015 denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

3. The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Ram Krishna (M: 9242460320) Appellant's father representing her through VC;

Respondent: Mr. Shaerif Rasheed, ACIT (M: 8762302849); Mrs. Bharathi, ITI (M: 8762300561) through VC;

4. The Appellant's representative reiterated the contents of RTI application and stated that satisfactory information was not provided to him. It was submitted that the FAA erred by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramachandra Deshpande on the ground that the aforesaid judgment was general in nature and did not apply to the facts of the present case. In support of his contention, the Appellant's representative cited the decision of the Commission in CIC/SA/A/2014/000433 dated 03.02.2015. In reply, the Respondent submitted that the information sought related to a third party and was exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. In support of its decision, the Respondent cited the decision of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & Ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012. It was further submitted that in the absence of PAN Card details information sought by the Appellant could not be provided. On a query from the Commission on whether any dispute was pending adjudication, the Appellant's representative responded in the affirmative and stated that a matter was pending adjudication before the Hon'ble High Court after having been contested at the Family Court. On a query from the Commission whether Income Tax details were sought at the Family Court, the Appellant's representative replied in the negative.

5. The Commission...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL