CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2010/000275
Appellant : Shri Ashish Babubhai Ghelani
Public Authority : Income Tax Department, Mumbai
(through : Shri K.K. Mahajan, Addl. CIT, Range
16(2), Mumbai)
Date of Hearing : 08.06.2010
Date of Decision : 08.06.2010
FACTS
:
The matter is called for hearing today dated 08.06.2010. The appellant is
represented by Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta. The Public Authority is represented by Shri
K.K. Mahajan.
2. It is noticed that vide his RTI application dated 8.1.2010, the appellant had
sought copies of the ITRs of Ms Hemali JitendraThakker(his wife) for F.Ys. 2001-02 to
2008-09. The CPIO had refused to disclose this information vide letter dated 28.1.2010
without mentioning any specific provision of law under which the information was being
denied. On appeal, Shri K.K. Mahajan, the then JCIT, in his capacity as AA, had upheld
the decision of CPIO vide order dated 4.3.2010 in terms of clauses (d) & (j) of section
8(1).
3. The present appeal is directed against the above orders.
4. The first and foremost submission of Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta is that a marital
dispute between the appellant and his wife is pending in the VIIth Family Court,
Mumbai, at Bandra and the court had directed Ms Thakker to produce Income Tax
Returns for inspection of the appellant but Smt. Thakker did not comply with the court
order. It is his plea that it would be in the larger public interest as also in the interest of
administration of justice to disclose the requested information.
5. Shri Gupta has drawn our attention to this Commission’s decision dated
8.5.2006 in File No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00108 wherein the Commission had directed as
follows :-
“As the investigation on TEP has been conducted by DIT(Inv.), the
relevant report is the outcome of public action, which needs to be disclosed.
This, therefore, cannot be exempted u/s 8(1)(j) as interpreted by the appellate
authority.
Accordingly, DIT(Investigation) is directed to disclose the report as per
the provision u/s 10(1)&(2), after the entire process of investigation and tax
recovery, if any, is complete in every respect.”
It is his say that this decision was upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide
decision dated 3.12.2007 in Bhagat Singh -Vs- CIC., which, in turn, was upheld by the
Supreme Court. When asked by the Commission to pin point the passage/para in Bhagat
Singh case which lays down that ITRs can be disclosed to the appellant, Shri Gupta
would submit that the High Court has upheld the CIC’s decision regarding disclosure of
the outcome of TEPs and the ratio of this ruling will apply in the present case.
6. His further submission is that section 137 of the Income Tax Act, which
provided for confidentiality of information, was omitted by the Finance Act of 1964, and
this omission signifies that matters relating to Income Tax are no more confidential and
fall in public domain. He would also plead that a conjoint reading of the omitted section
137 and section 138 of the IT Act persuades one to the conclusion that secrecy is no
more the guiding principle in Income Tax related matters.
7. He also assails the CPIO’s decision on the ground that a deep public interest is
involved in the disclosure of information in as much as efficient administration of justice
is synonymous with the larger public interest. It is his plea that if Ms Thakker’s ITRs are
disclosed to the appellant, it will be a step in the direction of more efficient
administration of justice and, hence, in the larger public interest.
8. He also assails the decision of the AA wherein information has been denied in
terms of section 8(1)(d) on the ground that no commercial confidence or trade secret etc.
is involved in the matter in hand.
9. Referring to clause (j) of section 8(1), Shri Gupta would plead that even if it is
assumed that the requested information is ‘personal information’, disclosure thereof
definitely has relationship with public activity or interest in as much as correct
assessment of Income Tax of the opposite party is in the larger public interest. He would
also plead that requested information cannot be said to be unwarranted invasion of
privacy as it is a matter between the husband and the wife.
10. On the other hand, Shri Mahajan would submit that the ITRs filed by Ms
Thakker are ‘personal information’ as defined under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and
this is a personal activity and not a public activity. His further submission is that so long
as the Income Tax Department does not assess the ITRs, it does not fall in the domain of
public activity, but once the Income Tax authorities pass assessment orders, the matter
then can be said to be falling in the domain of public activity. As no assessment orders
have been passed on the ITRs filed by Ms Thakker, the requested information is
exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
11. We showed a copy of the Commission’s decision dated 15.6.2009 passed in File
No. CIC/AT/A/08/00628 (Milap Choraria -Vs- CBDT) to Shri Gupta wherein a Five
Member Bench of the Commission has held that ITRs are ‘personal information’ and,
therefore, exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and sought his
response in regard thereto. Shri Gupta gave an evasive response to the effect that the
orders passed on ITRs are public activity, as admitted by the Appellate Authority, and,
therefore, the information is disclosable.
DECISION
12. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by Shri
Gupta. As noticed above, his main plea is that disclosure of this information is in the
larger public interest in as much as it would enable the competent authority to adjudicate
the suit pending between the appellant and Ms. Thakker with greater efficacy. This plea
can not be accepted in the light of the decision dated 15.6.2009 of a Five Member Bench
of this Commission in decision dated 15.6.2009 in File No. CIC/AT/A/2008/00628
(Milap Choraria -Vs- CBDT). Para 15 of the said decision is extracted here below :-
15. From the above discussion, it would appear that the Income Tax Returns
have been rightly held to be ‘personal information’ exempted from disclosure
under clause (j) of section 8(1) of RTI Act by the CPIO and the Appellate
Authority; and the appellant herein has not been able to establish that a larger
public interest would be served by disclosure of this information. The plea of the
appellant that the FIR lodged against him and the members of his family is a
public document and, therefore, the information sought by him to defend himself
in a criminal case falls in public domain, is misconceived. As mentioned in the
proceeding para, above the appellant is not without remedy to protect himself
from any act of alleged malicious prosecution. Hence, the decision of Appellate
Authority is upheld. Appeal fails.
Dismissed.”
From the above passage, it is clear that a Full Bench of the Commission
has held ITRs to be personal information exempted from disclosure under clause
(j) of section 8(1).
13. We may also observe that Bhagat Singh case is not of much help to the appellant
as it did not deal with the issue of the disclosure of the ITRs. Similarly, omission of
section 137 of the Income Tax Act is also of no relevance in the matter. It is to be noted
that the statutory provisions are to be construed in the light of legislative intent and not
on surmises and guesses. Omission of section 137 of Income Tax Act cannot defeat the
clear provisions of section 8(1)(j).
14. In sum, keeping in view the provisions of section 8(1)(j) and the decision of the
Full Bench of the Commission referred to above, we find no merit in the appeal and the
same is dismissed.
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.
(D.C. Singh)
Under Secretary & Deputy Registrar
Address of parties :-
1. The ACIT 16(2), Mumbai & CPIO,
Room No. 207, 2nd Floor, Matru Mandir,
Tardeo Road, Mumbai-07.
2. Shri Ashish Babubhai Ghelani,
Venus Apartments, G-46, R.G. Thadani Marg,
12th Floor, Worli, Mumbai-400018.