1
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama
Place, New Delhi110066
Telefax:01126180532 & 01126107254 websitecic.gov.in
Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2010/001808
Appellant /Complainant : Dr. Abhishek Gupta,
Kolkata
Public Authority : O/o the Income Tax
Officer, Ward3(1),
Gwalior (Shri Likayat Ali,
ACIT/AA and Shri
Lal Singh Jhala, CPIO -
through video
Conferencing)
Date of Hearing : 04 May 2011
Date of Decision : 16 May 2011
Facts
:
1. Dr Abhishek Gupta preferred RTI application
dated 22 April 2010 before the CPIO, office of the
Income Tax Officer Ward – 3 (1), Gwalior seeking
information pertaining to all records available with
the Income Tax Department including Assessment
Records etc., pertaining to Shri Muralilal Gupta and
Mrs Shakuntala Devi Gupta for the assessment years
2004 – 05 to 2008 – 09 – enclosed herewith as
Annexure A.
2. Vide CPIO order dated 14 May 2010, the appellant
was denied disclosure of information on the grounds
that information sought by him was pertaining to
third party and that they had objected to the
disclosure of their personal information to him.
3. Appellant preferred appeal dated 19 May 2010
before the first appellate authority who decided the
matter vide FAA order dated 15 June 2010 after
providing opportunity of hearing to the appellant and
denied disclosure of the information sought.
4. Appellant preferred second appeal before the
Commission to challenge the above orders. The matter
2
was heard today. Respondent was present as above and
was heard through videoconferencing from Gwalior.
Appellant was present in person. Both parties
presented arguments. Appellant relied on decision of
the Commission in appeal number CIC/LS/A/2010/001044
– DS dated 24 March 2011. Respondent reiterated the
arguments stated in the decision of the CPIO and on
the speaking order of the first appellate authority.
Decision notice
5. After hearing both parties, it is the view of
the Commission that the information sought is not
granted immunity from disclosure as class of
information. Protection of disclosure has to be
ensured by balancing the two competing aspects of
public interest that is, if disclosure would cause
injury or unwarranted invasion of privacy and on the
other hand is nondisclosure would thawart the
Administration of Justice.
6. The second contention of the appellant revolves
around the concept of “larger public interest”. As
per the averments of the appellant, the “State” is
pursuing a criminal case against him and that since
the “State” has decided to prosecute him because of
legal fiction created under section 405 of IPC,
automatically “larger public interest” is involved in
the matter. The matter of prosecution in this case is
loosely termed as Dowry case which invariably have
the components of ‘Criminal Breach of Trust’ relating
to misappropriation of property. In our view, in
case, the State relies upon the fiction of
misappropriation, then the other party should have a
right to know the details of property reflected in IT
Returns which is alleged to be misappropriated.
7. The mandate of the RTI Act to disclose personal
information under Section 8(1)(j) is even stricter
since it appends the expression “larger” to “public
interest”. Mere public interest will not suffice in
the disclosure of personal information such as the IT
Returns of an assessee unless the Applicant can prove
3
that a “larger” public interest demands such
disclosure. The expression “larger” cannot be defined
or carved into a straightjacketed formula and
neither can it be easily disposed of. If the
Applicant incessantly stresses on the argument that
false dowry cases are a matter of “larger public
interest” and that the information relating to IT
returns of his fatherinlaw be furnished to him,
then an equally challenging rebuttal could be that
the Income Tax Act, which defines the procedure of
disclosure of such IT Returns to him, is a public
policy which has been enacted by the State keeping in
mind the larger good of the society. It is not the
case of the Respondents that objection to disclosure
of the documents is taken on the ground that it
belongs to a class of documents which are protected
irrespective of their contents, because there is no
absolute immunity for documents belonging to such
class.
8. In my view, having assessed the factual
situation and the legal reasoning at hand, the
correct position of law is that the right forum for
seeking the IT Returns of an assessee by a third
person is either the Chief Commissioner, Income Tax
or the Concerned Court, if the matter is subjudice.
My view is furthered by the fact that the position
after the repealing of Section 137 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 by Finance Act, 1964 is that the Court in a
subjudice matter can direct the IT Authorities to
furnish the information pertaining to IT Returns of
an assessee for inspection by the Court. Thus,
disclosure will be warranted if such line of action
is followed. There is no absolute ban on disclosure
of IT returns.
9. Since, the present appeal raises important
questions of law; it is our duty to apply the law as
it stands today. In SP Gupta vs. UOI ([1982] 2 SCR
365), a seven judges bench of the Apex Court held that
“the Court would allow the objection to disclosure if
its finds that the document relates to affairs of
State and its disclosure would be injurious to public
4
interest, but on the other hand, if it reaches the
conclusion that the document does not relate to the
affairs of State or the public interest does not
compel its nondisclosure or that the public interest
in the administration of justice in a particular case
overrides all other aspects of public interest, it
will overrule the objection and order the disclosure
of the documents.” It was further held that “in
balancing the competing interest, it is the duty of
the Court to see that there is the public interest
that harm shall not be done to the nation or public
service by disclosure of the document and there is a
public interest that the administration of justice
shall not be frustrated by withholding the documents
which must be produced if justice is to be done.”
10. In light of the above view taken by the Apex
Court, I am inclined to make an observation in this
case. I have already discussed the settled point of
law regarding public interest but it is in the
pursuance of the principle of that public interest
only where we feel that the information pertaining to
net taxable income of an assessee for the period of
year 2000 till date be furnished by following the
Section 10 of the RTI Act to his Income Tax Returns.
We shall distinguish the present case from the
decision of the CIC in the case of Milap Choraria vs.
Central Board of Direct Taxes (Appeal No.
CIC/AT/A/2008/00628) as decided on 15.06.2009 and in
the case of P.R. Gokul vs. Commissioner, Income Tax,
Kottayaam (CIC/AT/A/2007/00405) decided on 15.06.2007.
The Milap Choraria Case (supra) did not deal with the
issue of information pertaining to net taxable income
per se while the Gokul Case (supra) was not centered
around the issue of larger public interest for the
purpose of disclosure of net taxable income, unlike
the present case. In S.P. Gupta case (Supra), Supreme
Court stated “The language of the provision is not a
static vehicle of ideas and as institutional
development and democratic structures gain strength,
a more liberal approach may only be in larger public
interest.”
5
11. CPIO is directed to furnish information
pertaining to the net taxable income of Shri
Muralilal Gupta and Smt Shakuntala Devi Gupta,
fatherinlaw and motherinlaw respectively of the
appellant for the assessment years 2008 – 09 and 2009
– 10 to the appellant within two weeks of receipt of
the order. (These two years have been identified as
the appellant has stated that the date of his
marriage was February 2008)
12. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
Information Commissioner (DS)
Authenticated true copy:
(T. K. Mohapatra)
Under Secretary & Dy. Registrar
Copy to:
1. Dr. Abishek Gupta, IAAS
Principal Director of Audit,
South Eastern Railway
11, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata474001
2. The CPIO
O/o the Income Tax Officer,
Ward3(1), Gwalior, Aayakar Bhawan
City Centre, Gwalior474001.
3. The Appellate Authority
O/o the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Range3, Gwalior, Aayakar Bhawan
City Centre, Gwalior474001.