Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/001718-BJ. Case: D.P. Uma Devi Vs CPIO & ITO, Ward-4. Central Information Commission
|Case Number:||Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/001718-BJ|
|Party Name:||D.P. Uma Devi Vs CPIO & ITO, Ward-4|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: D.P. Uma Devi and Akash Gupta, Advs. and For Respondents: Devendra Naik, ITO|
|Judges:||Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner|
|Issue:||Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 138(1); Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1), 8(1)(j)|
|Judgement Date:||April 19, 2017|
|Court:||Central Information Commission|
Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner
1. The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the ITR of her husband for the period from Assessment Year 2008 till closer along with all P&L, Balance Sheet of the companies where he was Partner along with IT Returns of the Companies etc.
2. The CPIO and ITO, Ward 4, Shimoga, vide its letter dated 01.02.2016 denied disclosure of information under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 being in the nature of personal information having no relationship to any larger public activity or interest. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 25.04.2016 suggested that the best course of action for the applicant was to seek information u/s. 138 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 through appropriate authority or Court of Law.
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Ms. D.P. Uma Devi (M. 9980558557) alongwith Mr. Akash Gupta (M: 9538332233) through TC;
Respondent: Mr. Devendra Naik, ITO Ward (3) (M: 8762301064) through VC;"
3. Due to technical problem, VC at Bangalore could not be connected and hence the Appellant was heard through TC. The Appellant reiterated the contents of her RTI application and stated that considering the seriousness of the matter, the information sought was urgently required to share all evidence in her possession with the relevant Court. It was argued that her relatives have used the PAN Card details to benefit themselves and that Partners who had not invested any money have claimed to be Partners of the big Company. It was alleged that her late husband's accounts were in the hands of fraudsters who had broken her trust and cheated her of her husband's hard earned money form business and property. Certain names had been included in the Appeal who have alleged to have played truant with the family. Therefore, it was urged that the IT Returns and P&L Details of the Company should be disclosed to her so that she could use these documents in her defense at the appropriate court. The representative of the Appellant argued that her health was deteriorating day by...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL