CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00490
Dated, the 17th October, 2008.
Appellant : Shri Bhushan Kumar
Respondents : Income Tax Department
This matter was heard on 15.10.2008. Appellant was absent in response
to Commission’s hearing notice dated 16.07.2008. Respondents were present
through the CPIO, Shri Manjit Singh.
2. Respondents pointed out that through Commission’s order dated
09.07.2007 in Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00464 an exactly similar matter was
decided in appeal filed by the same appellant. Appellant cannot be allowed to
repeatedly bring up the same matter as it would be offensive to the principle of
Res Judicata.
3. The RTI-request of the appellant, dated 25.09.2007 was in regard to all
information including Action Taken Report held by the public authority relative
to the investigation regarding the sources of income and tax liabilities of the
third-party, Shri Rajinder Singh Saggu.
4. CPIO, through his communication dated 18.12.2007, declined to disclose
the requested information citing the personal nature of the information and the
earlier decisions of the Commission not to allow disclosure of such information.
5. The appellant has argued that the requested information merited disclosure
in the light of the Delhi High Court judgement in Bhagat Singh case.
6. It is noted that the third-party has objected to the disclosure of this
information on the ground that the appellant was his son-in-law with whom he
was engaged in an ongoing litigation. Appellant feared that if this information
were to pass into the hands of the appellant, he would misuse it to inflict harm on
the third-party.
7. On perusal of the document submitted by both parties as well as the
third-party and on hearing the arguments, Commission sees no deficiency in the
orders passed by the CPIO and the Appellate Authority. The Delhi High Court
order cited by the appellant in support of his claim for disclosure of information
has no application in the present case, insofar as the pith and the substance of the
Court decision was the scope of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. In the present case,
Page 1 of 2
the issue before the Commission is whether a set of information known to be
personal to a third-party be allowed to be disclosed to an applicant regardless of
the objection of the third-party and regardless of the harm such disclosure might
inflict on the third-party.
8. In Commission’s view, all income tax-related information, as entrusted by
an assessee to the charge of the income tax authorities, is personal information
and, does not cease to be so only because rather than be in the hands of the
assessee, it has been passed on into the control of the public authority under a
statute. The location of the information doesn’t alter its character.
9. It is the Commission’s considered opinion that all income tax-related
information held by the public authority on behalf of an assessee comprises
assessee’s personal information under Section 8(1)(j) and cannot be disclosed in
order to promote some self-serving concept of transparency as now projected by
the petitioner. Commission also cannot be oblivious of the fact that given the
strained relationship between the petitioner and the third-party there is
considerable scope for the misuse of this divulged information. Such disclosures
will compromise and not promote the objective of the RTI Act.
10. In view of the above, I find no merit in the appellant’s submissions.
The AA’s decision is upheld. Appeal closed.
11. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Page 2 of 2