File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/000210/BS/8301. Case: Chandratan B. Somani Vs CPIO & Income Tax Officer and Ors.. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/000210/BS/8301 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: C. Somani and For Respondents: Varghese K. Philip, CPIO and H.K. Lal, FAA |
| Judges | Basant Seth, Information Commissioner |
| Issue | Constitution Of India - Article 143; Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1), 8(1)(j) |
| Judgement Date | August 10, 2015 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
|
Decision: 1. The appellant stated that he has not received the information sought in his RTI application dated 12/08/2013. The FAA stated that the information relates to two assesses viz. Shri Radheshyam Somani and Shri Purushottam Somani and is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In support of his contention he cited Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision dated 03/10/2012 in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande and Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision dated 24/11/2014 in the matter of CIT v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta. The appellant contested quoting CIC decision dated 24/03/2011 in the matter of Manoj Kumar Saini v. CIT (File No. CIC/LS/A/2010/001044/DS) wherein the Commission had allowed disclosure of net taxable income of Munna Lal Saini. 2. The FAA strongly argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande is clear wherein the Court has held that "income tax returns are 'personal information' which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information." 3. The appellant alleged that the assesses are fraudsters and are involved in a scam of over Rs. 100/- Crs. and Mr. Radheshyam Somani is still at large and two criminal cases are pending against them including one in CBI Court. He vehemently argued that there is larger public interest in the matter as the Commission has held that disclosure of information will lead to greater transparency and accountability. He pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of S.P. Gupta v. President of India AIR 1982 SC 149 has held that public interest means "redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, "defused" rights and interest." The FAA argued that the... |
To continue reading
Request your trial