ATC480BishanLal212 6 1
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Block IV, 4Th Floor, Old JNU Campus
New Delhi-110067
Appeal No. CIC/AT/C/2008/00480
Complainant: Shri Bishan Lal
Public Authority: Central Board of Director Taxes
(through Shri Dinesh Kumar, Tax Recovery
Officer, Barielly)
Date of Hearing: 02/12/2008
Date of Decision 02/12/2008
FACTS
:-
By his letter of 17/05/2008, the complainant had requested for copies of the
Income Tax Returns filed by Shri Jaipal Singh, SDO, BSNL, Barielly, for the years 1997-
98, to 2007-2008. The purpose for seeking this information is, perhaps to contest a case
lodged by said Jaipal Singh alleging demand of dowry etc. by the opposite party.
2. CPIO, by his letter of 25/06/2008, obtained objection from the third party u/s
11(j) of the RTI Act and keeping that in view had declined to disclose information
without specifically mentioning any specific section of the RTI Act.
3. The complainant did not file appeal before the first Appellate Authority and,
instead, chose to file the present complaint before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard on 02/12/2008. The complainant did not appear before the
Commission. The Public Authority is represented by the officer named above. Shri
Dinesh Kumar, Tax Recovery Officer, Barielly, alsosubmitted letters addressed to the
Commission by Shri Ashok Kumar, ITO, which is taken on record. It appears that the
information has been denied to the complainant in terms of section 8(9) of RTI Act,
2005. However, it is noteworthy that the complainant has given a specific reason for
which he is seeking this information, namely, to determine the financial status of the third
party, (Jaipal Singh) as he, appears to need this information to defend himself in a dowry
case.
5. The real issue for consideration is, whether the public interest in disclosure
outweighs the interest protected.
DECISION
6. As the complainant has not filed first appeal before the first Appellate Authority,
he is advised to do so, if so advised. The Appellate Authority is hereby directed to
condone the delay in the submission of appeal and decide the matter on merit.
ATC480BishanLal212 6 2
7. If the complainant is aggrieved with the order passed by the first Appellate
Authority, he would be at liberty to move this Commission again.
8. The matter is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges,
prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.L. Das)
Assistant Registrar
Tele: 011-2616 26 62