Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No.3018/IC(A)/2008
F. No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00189
Dated, the 7th August, 2008
Name of the Appellant: Sh. Eknath G. Sawaikar
Name of the Public Authority: Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax
Facts
:
1. Both the parties were heard on 5/8/2008.
2. The appellant has asked for certain information, which has been furnished
except the following:
“Exchange of correspondence if any for the approval of the VRS between
the CCIT and M/s D.B. Bandodkar & sons Ltd., other than referred to
above, from the date of application dated 28.10.99 for VRS approval by
the Company till the date of Order dated 20.12.1999 issued by CCIT,
Bangalore.”
3. The respondent has replied and refused to furnish the information on the
ground that “the information pertains to many third parties and personal
information belonging to many salaried employees and is not required to be
given as covered by section 8(e) of the RTI Act.”
4. During the hearing, the appellant stated that the respondent has wrongly
invoked section 8(1)(e) of the Act, for denial of information, as the information
asked for pertains to the statutory duties and responsibilities carried out by the
respondent. The action relating to payment/deduction of TDS and assessment of
tax liabilities of tax payers cannot be treated as the information available to the
respondent in fiduciary capacity. He, therefore, pleaded that the information
asked for should be furnished, as the grounds for seeking exemption from
disclosure of information is unjustified.
i
i
“If you don’t ask, you don’t get.” – Mahatma Gandhi
1
5. The CPIO stated that the documents asked for contain information relating
to a large number of tax payers and the disclosure of information is not in public
interest. Hence denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act.
6. The appellant, however, pleaded for providing information relating to
himself as he is an affected person in the matter.
Decision:
7. The information asked for relate, among others, to TDS statement
pertaining to a large number of tax payers. The denial of information u/s 8(1)(j)
of the Act, is, therefore, justified lest the disclosure of information would reveal
the details of incomes and TDS paid by a large number of employees of a firm.
8. The appellant is, however, advised to seek information relating to his own
income and deduction of TDS etc. The CPIO is directed to examine the
application as and when received from the appellant or any other tax payer and
accordingly take a decision for disclosure of information as per the provisions of
the Act.
9. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Assistant Registrar
Name & address of Parties:
1. Sh. Eknath G. Sawaikar, Chaitanya, Plot No.34, Sagar Co-op Hsg. Soc.
Ltd, Dona Paula, Goa – 403 004.
2. Ms. Nilima Mansukhani, CPIO, O/O the Commissioner of Income Tax,
No.5, Patto Plaza, Aayakar Bhavan, Panaji-Goa – 403 001.
3. Sh. M.P. Sharma, Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax & Appellate
Authority, Income Tax Department, Aayakar Bhavan, Panaji-Goa – 403
001.
ii
ii
“All men by nature desire to know.” – Aristotle
2