CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00519
Dated, the 17th October, 2008.
Appellant : Shri Moti Ram
Respondents : Income Tax Department
This matter came up for hearing on 15.10.2008. Appellant was absent,
whereas the respondents were represented by Shri G.C.Negi, Commissioner of
Income Tax and Shri L.R. Sapra, ACIT. Third-party, Shri Ajay Kumar was
personally present.
2. Respondents pointed out that the appellant had filed a tax-evasion petition
against the third-party which was enquired into by the officers of Income Tax
Department under extant rules. Appellant requested information related to the
enquiry report through his RTI-application dated 29.11.2006.
3. The CPIO as well as the Appellate Authority, through their orders
respectively dated 12.12.2006 and 02.02.2007 declined to disclose information
on the ground that it was a confidential information of the third-party held by the
respondents and in the light of the provisions of the RTI Act as well as the earlier
decisions of the Commission in Shri Bhagat Singh Vs. Income Tax Dept
(Decision No.185/IC(A)/2006 dated 18-08-2006), there is no obligation to
disclose this information cast on the respondents.
4. The third-party, Shri Ajay Kumar submitted during the hearing that he
was the son-in-law of this appellant. A divorce proceeding between the
third-party and the appellant’s daughter is in progress. Appellant has done
everything in his power to intimidate and pressurize the third-party, driven by his
anger against the third-party. Shri Ajay Kumar asked whether it was at all
appropriate that RTI Act be allowed to become a play thing in the hands of
unscrupulous elements to gain the power to poach into information of private
persons which happen to come into the possession of public authorities.
He submitted that although he was a low-paid teacher, on account of the petitions
filed by the appellant before the income tax authorities, a tax-evasion proceeding
was started against the third-party which could disclose no evasion or avoidance
of tax by him. He pointed out that the purpose of the actions of the appellant was
simply to inflict harassment and detriment on the third-party, to which the
income tax authorities became unwitting parties. He stated that it was strange
that Income Tax Department had time to pursue a tax-evasion proceeding against
a teacher whose income was known to be small. That the tax authorities carried
out the investigation, as the third-party believes, against their own best
Page 1 of 2
judgement, it only reveals the clout which the appellant enjoys. Shri Ajay
Kumar requested the Commission’s protection against misuse of the provisions
of the RTI Act in the name of transparency. He demanded that RTI Act should
concentrate on disclosing information held by public authorities and not private
information of citizens which come into the possession of public authorities in
discharge of the latter’s sovereign functions.
5. On perusing the documents submitted by both parties and after hearing the
arguments, it is noted that this matter is not all about disclosure of Income Tax
Returns filed by the third-party but about information regarding an enquiry into
alleged tax-evasion by him. The tax-evasion petitioner has now requested the tax
authorities to inform him of the action taken in pursuance of his petition.
6. Commission’s position in such matters in other cases has been that when
an enquiry is known to have been conducted by the public authority, the
conclusion of that enquiry ⎯ given that the enquiry has been completed ⎯ is
better disclosed, especially to the party at whose behest such an enquiry was
established in the first place.
7. Commission appreciates the concerns of the third-party about the growing
tendency among petitioners to seek information of private persons invoking the
provisions of the RTI Act. Commission has protected the interest of the private
parties and allowed disclosure of information only when it is evident that such
interest is not going to be compromised by the revelations.
8. In the present case, now that it is established that an enquiry was
conducted and a certain conclusion was made, it appears just and proper that the
final verdict contained in the enquiry as accepted by the public authority be
disclosed to the appellant. Commission doesn’t consider it necessary that the
entire report be allowed to be disclosed to the appellant considering the fact that
the report contains information regarding the income, its sources and such other
details which are undoubtedly private and personal information of the assessee
such as this third-party.
9. In view of the above, it is directed that respondents will provide to the
appellant the conclusions contained in the enquiry report and as it has been
accepted by the higher officers of the Income Tax Department. This may be
done within two weeks of the receipt of this order.
10. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
11. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Page 2 of 2