Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/001276-BJ. Case: Swapnil Ramrao Kohale Vs CPIO & ITO. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/001276-BJ |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Amit Khare, Advocate and Piyush Jain, Adv. and For Respondents: Darshan Nandeshwar, Inspector Income Tax |
| Judges | Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner |
| Issue | Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 11(1), 2(n), 7(7), 8(1), 8(1)(d), 8(1)(d)(e), 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j) |
| Judgement Date | April 17, 2017 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
|
Decision Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner Facts: 1. The Appellant vide his RTI Application sought information on 6 points regarding Income Tax Returns submitted by HUF of which he was a member from 01.04.1998, till date and name of members of HUF including Karta Shri Ramrao Krishnarao Kohale as per Income Tax Records and issues related thereto. 2. The CPIO vide its letter dated 25.02.2016, stated that the information sought by the Appellant related to M/s. Ramrao Krishnarao Kohale HUF and related to personal information of the assessee which had no relationship to any public activity or interest and was exempted from disclosure as per section 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its detailed order dated 06.04.2016 concurred with the response of the CPIO. HEARING: Facts emerging during the hearing: The following were present: Appellant: Mr. Amit Khare (Advocate) (M: 9373109025) and Mr. Piyush Jain (M: 9922999355) representing the Appellant through VC; Respondent: Mr. Darshan Nandeshwar, Inspector Income Tax (M: 7588630277) through VC; 3. The Appellant's representative reiterated the contents of RTI application and stated that he had sought information regarding the Income Tax Returns submitted by the HUF of which he was a member from 01.04.1998, till date, name of members of HUF including Karta as per Income Tax Records, assessment orders passed, if any, details of the bank accounts of HUF as declared with the Income Tax Department, etc. It was submitted that the CPIO/FAA erred by denying disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(d)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. It was further submitted that HUF was assessed as a separate entity under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and is issued a separate PAN Card. It was also submitted that the Respondent authority totally erred to hold the view that the information sought by him related to a third party. It was explained that the Appellant was a member of HUF Shri Ramrao Krishnarao Kohale (HUF) wherein Shri Ramrao Krishnarao Kohale is the Karta and the Appellant is the real son of the Karta and thus by operation of Hindu Law and by way of birth, the Appellant was a member of the HUF and hence was not a third party per se the HUF. 4. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that the information... |
To continue reading
Request your trial