Complaint No. CIC/BS/C/2016/000027-BJ. Case: Mahavir Singh Vs CPIO, Director of Income Tax (S)-III. Central Information Commission

Case Number:Complaint No. CIC/BS/C/2016/000027-BJ
Party Name:Mahavir Singh Vs CPIO, Director of Income Tax (S)-III
Judges:Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner
Issue:Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 11, 20, 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 Mahavir Singh Vs CPIO, Director of Income Tax (S)-III
Case No Complaint No. CIC/BS/C/2016/000027-BJ
Judges Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner
Acts Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 11, 20, 8(1), 8(1)(j)

Decision

Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner

FACTS:

1. The Complainant vide his RTI Application sought information regarding the copies of Annual Property Returns, Wealth Tax, Income Tax Return and details of movable/immovable property of his wife Kavita Singh along with other family members for last five years (since 2010) etc.

2. Dissatisfied on not receiving any response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO or the order of the FAA, if any, is not available in the record of the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

3. The following were present:

Complainant: Absent;

Respondent: Mr. Nitin G. Ramtekkar, ITO (S)-3 (M: 9013851468);

4. The Complainant remained absent during the hearing. The Respondent stated that the RTI application dated 20.10.2015 was received by them through Nodal Officer CBDT vide its letter dated 05.11.2015. This application was examined by them and it was observed that this related to Third Party and that the applicant had not brought on record any public interest warranting disclosure of information. It was categorically stated that revelation of Income Tax Details of Third Party may result in undue invasion to the privacy of the Assessees. This information was exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. A reference was made of Shri Surendra Nath Bhargav Vs. HPCL and BPCL (154/IC(a) 2006 and other CIC decisions in the matter). During the hearing, it was informed that the First Appeal filed by the Complainant had not been received by them.

5. The Commission referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & Ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:

"13....... The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right."

14. The details disclosed by a person in his 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...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL