CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No. CIC/LS/A/2009/000483
Appellant : Shri Devi Shankar Sharma
Public Authority : Income Tax Department
(through Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Addl. Commissioner,
Delhi, Range-3 & Shri Anil Dang, ITO, Ward-33(2))
Date of Hearing : 22.6.2009
Date of Decision : 22.6.2009
Facts
By his letter of 7.10.2008, the appellant had requested for information on the
following 04 points :-
“1(A) The Name/Fathers Name & Address of the proprietor/partners of the above
said two shops;
1(B) The date of establishment of the above said two shops and whether these
shops or partners thereof are assesses under the Income Tax Act and since
when;
1(C) The PAN Numbers of the partners of M/s High Aims Jems and Jewellers and
M/s Royal Jewellers; &
1(D) Whether the above said two shops and/or their partners have filed their
Income Tax Returns during the past three years and if so the present status of
assessment thereof.”
2. The CPIO had refused to disclose the information vide his letter dated
3.11.2008 on the ground that the information requested for was personal in nature
and exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of section 8 (1). The Appellate
Authority vide his order dated 17.12.2008 had upheld the decision of the CPIO.
3. Hence, the present appeal.
4. The matter was heard on 22.6.2009. The appellant is present along with
Advocate M.P. Sharma. The public authority is represented by the officers named
above. It is the submission of Shri Kumar that the appellant is having litigation with
the family members and, therefore, the information requested for by him cannot be
disclosed as it may be used by him in the court proceedings. It is also his submission
that the information is personal in nature and, therefore, exempted from disclosure.
He has especially objected to the disclosure of PAN number of the non-applicant
firms.
5. On the other hand, Advocate Sharma submits that the information requested
for cannot be said to be ‘personal’ in as much as the Income Tax Returns and other
financial assets of the firms in question have not been requested for. What has been
requested for is merely the names and the other particulars of the proprietors/partners
of the two firms and, therefore, this information is disclosable. Advocate Sharma
has also produced before the Commission a copy of decision dated 18.12.2008 in
File No. CIC/AT/A/2008/00854, 981 & 982 (Devi Shankar Sharma Vs Department
of Trades and Taxes) wherein the Commission had directed the CPIO to provide the
names of the partners of the firm in question.
6. We feel that the information sought cannot be said to be personal in terms of
clause (j) of section 8 (1) and is disclosable, as held by this Commission in the case
cited above. However, PAN number of the partners of M/s High Aims Jems &
Jewelers & M/s Royal Jewelers can be said to be ‘personal’ in nature and, therefore,
is not disclosable.
DECISION
7. In view of the above discussion, the CPIO is hereby directed to disclose
information in regard to the paras 1 (A), 1 (B) & 1 (D) to the appellant in next 03
weeks time.
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