{"id":183386,"date":"2009-12-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cit-on-14-december-2009"},"modified":"2018-10-15T11:50:02","modified_gmt":"2018-10-15T06:20:02","slug":"mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cit-on-14-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cit-on-14-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Cit on 14 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Cit on 14 December, 2009<\/div>\n
                CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                    Club Building, Old JNU Campus,\n                  Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi 110 067.\n                          Tel: +91 11 26161796\n\n                                        Decision No. CIC\/LS\/A\/2009\/000647\/SG\/5887\n                                                Appeal No. CIC\/LS\/A\/2009\/000647\n\nRelevant facts emerging from the Appeal:\n\nAppellant                           :      Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta,\n                                           102, SFS Flats DDA, C & D Block\n                                           Shalimar Bagh, Outer Ring Road\n                                           Delhi 110088\n\nRespondent                          :      The Public Information Officers<\/pre>\n
                                           C\/o Commissioner of Income Tax
\n                                           CIT (Central)-2, Room No. 341<\/span>
\n                                           E-2, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Ext.,
\n                                           New Delhi-110055<\/p>\n
RTI application filed on            :      14\/01\/2009
\nPIO replied                         :      16\/02\/2009
\nFirst Appeal filed on               :      19\/02\/2009
\nFirst Appellate Authority order     :      08\/05\/2009
\nSecond Appeal filed on              :      13\/05\/2009<\/p>\n
Information sought:\n<\/p>\n
All records available with the income tax department including assessment records of all
\nthe levels with regard to:\n<\/p>\n
    1. Escorts Limited AY (1998-99 to 2005-2006)<\/p>\n
    2. Mr. Rajan Nanda AY (1998-99 to 2005-2006)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    3. Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Chandigarh (Society) AY (2001-2002)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    4. Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Delhi (Society) AY (1998-99 to 2001-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        2002)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    5. Dr. Naresh Trehan AY (1998-99 to 2005-2006)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    6. Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Limited Chandigarh AY (2000-2001 to
\n        2005-2006)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    7. Big Apple Clothing (P) Limited AY (1998-99 to 2005-2006)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    8. AAA Portfolio (P) Limited (1998-99 to 2005-2006)
\nRequired:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    1. Inspection of all records in above respect.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    2. Kindly provide the copies of documents mentioned at the time of inspection.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    3. Kindly provide the officers (from assessing officers to CCIT), who are the
\n        officers to take action on “Tax Evasion Petition” given by me from 01\/08\/2008
\n        till date.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                           Page 1 of 11<\/span><\/p>\n
 PIO’s Reply:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The PIO vide his reply stated that as the information related to third parties, they were
\nsent the notice accordingly. Third parties in reply to the notice objected strongly against
\nthe inspection as well as disclosure of information relating to their income tax records.
\nThird Parties submitted that the information sought included certain personal documents
\nand details which were part of the Income Tax Proceedings and if these details were
\nreleased, they might have potential to expose the assessee to grave danger from
\nunscrupulous and criminal elements. According to the PIO the Applicant was not able to
\nsubstantiate as to what is the overriding public interest in disclosing the information
\nrelating to third parties and unless the case of public interest is established, the disclosure
\nwould lead to an invasion of privacy of the assessees.\n<\/p>\n
In umpteen number of cases the CIC has observed that income tax related information are
\npersonal information of the third parties and therefore, should not be disclosed as such u\/s
\n8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005.\n<\/p>\n
  In so far as the issue mentioned at Sl. No. 3 of the petition is covered, this is under
\ncompilation and action as deemed fit would be taken in due course time.\n<\/p>\n
Grounds for First Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
PIO’s refusal to grant information.\n<\/p>\n
Order of the First Appellate Authority:\n<\/p>\n
The FAA upheld PIO’s reasons to refuse to grant the information and therefore, did not
\nallow the appeal. With regards to supply of copies of TEPs, PIO was directed to supply
\ncopies along with the action taken thereon.\n<\/p>\n
Grounds for Second Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Nothing was stated in the information presently given to the Applicant as to what has
\nbeen done by the Income Tax Department on the Tax Evasion Petition given by others.
\nVarious TEPs were not given to him related to Escorts Limited, Mr. Rajan Nanda and
\nothers. Refusal to give information not valid.\n<\/p>\n
Relevant facts emerging during hearing on 18\/08\/2009:
\nThe following were present.\n<\/p>\n
Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Gupta
\nRespondent: Mr. VM Mahidhar, PIO, Asst. Commissioner IT<\/p>\n
The PIO stated he was not prepared for the hearing. The Commission also felt that since
\nthird parties have objected they should be heard. The Commission decided to adjourn the
\nmatter and also asked the respondent to serve the notice on all the third parties and give
\nthem copies of all the documents. The next hearing was fixed on 18 September 2009 at
\n4.30pm.\n<\/p>\n
Relevant facts arising during the hearing held on 18\/09\/2009:
\nThe following persons were present:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Kr. Gupta
\nRespondent: Mr. VM Mahidhar, PIO, Asst. Commissioner IT, Central Circle 3
\nThird parties: Mr. PR Rajhans on behalf of Dr. Naresh Trehan;\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                 Page 2 of 11<\/span><\/p>\n
               Mr. Arun Kumar Bhatia on behalf of Escorts Ltd. (Delhi &
\n              Chandigarh); AAA Portfolios Pvt. Ltd., Big Apple Clothings Pvt. Ltd.,
\n              and Mr. Rajan Nanda,
\n              Mr. NL Gandhi on behalf of Escorts Heart Institute and Research
\n              Centre.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Mr. Rajhans stated the following “Disclosure of information in the course of an income
\ntax assessment does not constitute an invasion on the privacy of an individual and is in
\naccordance with statutory obligation. Disclosure of information to any third party
\namounts to invasion of privacy as these are personal information furnished to income tax
\ndepartment in course of assessments”.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Bhatia and Mr. Gandhi were asked if they wanted to make any oral submissions.
\nThey stated that whatever they wanted to say was stated in the written submissions.\n<\/p>\n
The PIO Mr. Mahidhar stated that “all the assessments were completed on the basis of the
\ninformation forwarded by the investigation wing and also based on the information
\nclaimed to be furnished by the Appellant and all these assessments were challenged by
\nthe third parties and were pending before different Appellate Authorities that is ITAT
\nlevel, Hon’ble High Court, New Delhi and Hon’ble Supreme Court. Logically no
\ninvestigation could be said to be complete unless it has reached a point where the final
\ndecision on the basis of that investigation is taken. In this context the progress of
\nassessments are therefore exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h).”\n<\/p>\n
The Commission asked the PIO to give reasons as to how Section 8(1)(h) would apply in
\nthe instant case. He states “one assessment in the case of EHIRC, Chandigarh Society for
\nthe AY 2001-2002 was restored back to an assessing officer by the Hon’ble ITAT
\nChandigarh. Because it is in the initial stages it would impede the process of
\ninvestigation”. He did not give any explanation how the investigation would be impeded.
\nHe further claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(e) and (j).\n<\/p>\n
The Commission asked Mr. Bhatia of Escorts who has submitted Decision No.
\nCIC\/AT\/A\/2006\/00586 of 18\/09\/2007 how this decision was relevant in the instant case.
\nMr. Rajhans stated that information should be sought in public interest.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta stated that Section 8(1) (j) cannot apply to legal entities and
\ncorporates and only applies to individuals. Mr. Gupta further states that Dr. Naresh
\nTrehan’s assessment was revised upwards by Rs. 14.7 crores at the CIT (Appeal). This is
\nbased on information received from RTI Application. The CIT (Appeal) has confirmed
\nthe addition of Rs. 14.7 crores over and above the returned income. But ITAT has
\nrestored back the issue to the Assessing officer to reassess the income. The Appellant
\nalleges that this addition of Rs. 14.7 crores is only of book value which only about 20%
\nof the market value.\n<\/p>\n
The order was reserved on 18\/09\/2009. The Respondents were directed to send written
\nsubmissions by 23\/09\/2009 and the Appellant was asked to respond by 30\/09\/2009.\n<\/p>\n
Decision announced on 14 December 2009:\n<\/p>\n
                                                                           Page 3 of 11<\/span><\/p>\n
 The Commission has received written submissions on behalf of Dr. Naresh Trehan on
\n23\/09\/2009 and 01\/10\/2009. The Commission has also received submissions from the
\nAppellant 23\/09\/2009.\n<\/p>\n
After perusing the submissions made during the hearing and considering the submissions
\nmade during the hearing, it appears that the following exemptions have been claimed by
\nthe Department and the Third parties- Section 8(1)(b), (d), (e), (h), and (j). Section 3 of
\nthe RTI Act very succinctly states ‘Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall
\nhave the right to information.’ Thus according to the RTI Act, if the information as
\ndefined under Section 2(f) is not exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) or 9 of the
\nAct, and is held by a public authority as defined under 2 (h), it has to be disclosed. It is
\nclear that the information sought is information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI
\nAct and is held by the Income Tax department which is a Public authority. Therefore, the
\nCommission will examine the applicability of the exemption clauses claimed by the
\nDepartment and the Third parties.\n<\/p>\n
The Citizen’s right to Information can only be restricted, if the disclosure is exempt under
\nSection 8 (1) of RTI Act 2005. The Commission will examine the applicability of each of
\nthe exemptions:\n<\/p>\n
Section 8(1) (b) of the Act provides-\n<\/p>\n
               8. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no
\n       obligation to give any citizen,–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       (b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be
\n                       published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of
\n                       which may constitute contempt of court;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Four third parties have relied on an earlier order of the Commission dated 18\/09\/2007 in
\nAppeal No. CIC\/AT\/A\/2006\/00586 to claim that information should not be disclosed to
\nthe Appellant. One of the grounds referred to by the Commission in this order is Section
\n8(1)(b).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This exemption clause can be applied only when the disclosure of information has been
\nexpressly forbidden by any court of law or tribunal. In its earlier order the Commission
\nhad referred the matter back to the First Appellate Authority on the ground that a
\ndetermination had to be made whether the tribunal had expressly forbidden the disclosure
\nof information or not. Therefore it is clear that in the earlier order of the Commission the
\nexemption under Section 8(1)(b) had not be applied. Furthermore, in the present case the
\nDepartment and the Third Parties have not established before the Commission that there
\nexists an order of any Court or tribunal which forbids the disclosure of the information
\nthat has been sought by the Appellant. Since no evidence has been shown that the
\ndisclosure of the exemption has been expressly forbidden by any court of law or tribunal,
\nthere appears to be no ground for claiming exemption under Section 8 (1) (b).\n<\/p>\n
Section 8(1) (d) of the Act provides-\n<\/p>\n
               8. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no
\n       obligation to give any citizen,–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       (d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or
\n                       intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the
\n                       competitive position of a third party, unless the competent
\n                       authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the
\n                       disclosure of such information;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                           Page 4 of 11<\/span><\/p>\n
 This ground for exemption has been relied on by three third parties. The Commission has
\nheld in Shivaji Pandurang Raut v. Income Tax, Pune CIC\/MA\/A\/2006\/00806 dated
\n05\/02\/2007 that denial of information relating to the details of taxes assessed and paid by
\nthe people of the Satara District under Section 8(1)(d) is not justified.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Furthermore, none of the third parties have explained before the Commission how this
\nground can apply in the present case and how the information which the Appellant has
\nbeen sought is of commercial confidence and that its disclosure would harm their
\ncompetitive interest. Unless both conditions are established, this exemption cannot apply.
\nThe last year for which information is sought relates to AY 2005-2006 ie. financial year
\nending 2005. It is extremely unlikely that there would be any information relating to
\n2005, which if revealed in 2009 could harm the competitive position of any of the third
\nparties. No arguments have been advanced even to justify that the information is one
\nwhere ‘commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property’ will get disclosed.
\nIn view of this the claim for this exemption has been made without any grounds.\n<\/p>\n
Section 8(1) (e) of the Act provides-\n<\/p>\n
               8. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no
\n       obligation to give any citizen,–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       (e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship,
\n                       unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public
\n                       interest warrants the disclosure of such information;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Department and all the third parties have relied on this ground of exemption. For
\nSection 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act to apply there must be a fiduciary relationship and holder
\nof information must hold the information in his fiduciary capacity. The traditional
\ndefinition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to
\nsomeone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter’s benefit within the scope of
\nthat relationship. In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties,
\nsuch as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. financial analyst or trustee.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The information must be given by the holder of information when there is a choice- as
\nwhen a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, or a patient goes to particular doctor. It is also
\nnecessary that the principal character of the relationship is the trust placed by the provider
\nof information in the person to whom the information is given. An equally important
\ncharacteristic for the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider
\nof information gives the information for using it for the benefit of the giver. All
\nrelationships usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as
\nfiduciary.\n<\/p>\n
In the present case, the information the Appellant is seeking information which the
\nDepartment has received from members of the public as a result of their statutory
\nobligation to file tax returns. Members of the public who have sent this information to the
\nDepartment did not have any choice with regard to who they would like to send this
\ninformation to. In fact, as there is a legal obligation to file these returns, members of the
\npublic have no choice with regard to the disclosure of this information to the Department.
\nTraditionally, lawyer-client relationship and doctor-patient relationship have been
\nconsidered to be examples of fiduciary relationship. In both these relationships, the
\nlawyer and the doctor act on behalf and in the interest of their client and patient. The
\nDepartment makes a tax assessment or takes any other action on this information based
\non the law and regulations relating to income tax. The Department does not take this
\n                                                                                 Page 5 of 11<\/span>
\n action for the benefit of the tax assessees or in their personal interest. If the department
\nwere to take action for the benefit of the assessees, it would be considered a corrupt
\npractice. The element of trust involve in such a situation is not the one required for a
\nfiduciary relationship. As the Department cannot be considered to be holding the
\ninformation in a fiduciary capacity, information sought by the Appellant, therefore,
\ncannot be denied on this ground.\n<\/p>\n
Section 8(1) (h) of the Act provides-\n<\/p>\n
               8. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no
\n       obligation to give any citizen,–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       (h) information which would impede the process of investigation or
\n                       apprehension or prosecution of offenders;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Dr. Naresh Trehan, one of the third parties, and the Department have relied on this
\nground of exemption. Both parties have stated that as the process of assessment has not
\nbeen finalized till date and investigation is still underway, exemption under Section
\n8(1)(h) applies. But the mere fact that an investigation is underway and that assessment
\nhas not been finalized is not a sufficient ground for the application of Section 8(1)(h).
\nThe High Court of Delhi has held in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP (C) No. 3114\/2007
\nthat-\n<\/p>\n
       “It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot
\n       be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding
\n       information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such
\n       information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should
\n       be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be
\n       reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section
\n       8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging
\n       demands for information”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The PIO has contention that, “Logically no investigation could be said to be complete
\nunless it has reached a point where the final decision on the basis of that investigation is
\ntaken. In this context the progress of assessments are therefore exempt from disclosure
\nunder Section 8(1)(h)”, only states that the investigation is not over. No claim has been
\nmade that the process of investigation would be impeded in any manner.\n<\/p>\n
Neither party has been able to establish before the Commission how the disclosure of
\ninformation to the Appellant would impede the process of investigation. Therefore,
\nSection 8(1)(h) cannot be applied in the present case to claim exemption from disclosure
\nof information.\n<\/p>\n
Section 8(1) (j) of the Act provides-\n<\/p>\n
               8. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no
\n       obligation to give any citizen,–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        (j) information which relates to personal information the
\n                        disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or
\n                        interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the
\n                        privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information
\n                        Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate
\n                        authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public
\n                        interest justifies the disclosure of such information:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                               Page 6 of 11<\/span><\/p>\n
                       Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the
\n                      Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any
\n                      person.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The final exemption claimed by the Department, Dr. Naresh Trehan and three other third
\nparties is under the Section 8(1)(j). The three other third parties are the Escorts Heart
\nInstitute and Research Centre, Delhi, Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre,
\nChandigarh and Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre Ltd. Section 8(1)(j) is with
\nregard to personal information and therefore it can only be claimed by natural persons
\nand not by corporate entities. The three Institutes cannot claim to have ‘personal’
\ninformation. There is a difference between having a personality, i.e. a legal personality,
\nand owning ‘personal information’. Personal information is information relating to a
\nnatural person, not a legal person. Words in a law should normally be given the meanings
\ngiven in common language. In common language we would ascribe the adjective
\n‘personal’ to an attribute which applies to an individual and not to an Institution or a
\nCorporate. From this it flows that ‘personal’ cannot be related to Institutions,
\norganisations or corporates.       Hence Section 8(1)(j) cannot be applied when the
\ninformation concerns institutions, organisations or corporates. Therefore, the
\nCommission is of the opinion that Section 8(1)(j) cannot be relied on by these three third
\nparties as they are not natural persons.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
With regard to the information relating to Dr. Naresh Trehan it has been argued by his
\nrepresentative that the information sought is personal as it contains personal financial
\ninformation of the assessee including various assets, income and expenditure and the
\ndisclosure of this information has no relationship with any public activity or interest. It
\nhas been alleged that the information has been sought with ill will and malice, with the
\nmotive to harass and blackmail the assessee. Furthermore, the Appellant is likely to
\nmisuse the information and could endanger the life and property of the assessee if the
\ninformation goes in the hands of unsocial elements. There is no larger public interest
\nserved in disclosing this information to the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
The Commission has considered the submissions made by the Appellant, the Department
\nand the representative of Dr. Naresh Trehan. To qualify for this exemption the
\ninformation must satisfy the following criteria:\n<\/p>\n
    1. It must be personal information.\n<\/p>\n
There is no doubt that information with regard to Dr. Naresh Trehan is personal
\ninformation.\n<\/p>\n
    2. It must not have been disclosed to the public authority as part of a public
\n        activity
\nThe phrase ‘disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest’
\nmeans that the information must have been given in the course of a Public activity.
\nVarious Public authorities in performing their functions routinely ask for ‘personal’
\ninformation from Citizens, and this is clearly a public activity. When a person applies for
\na job, or gives information about himself to a Public authority as an employee, or asks for
\na permission, licence or authorisation, all these are public activities. Also when a Citizen
\nprovides information in discharge of a statutory obligation, this too is a public activity.
\nTherefore, information provided by an assessee to the Department for purposes of income
\ntax assessment is information disclosed in relation to a public activity and therefore this
\npart of Section 8(1)(j) is inapplicable in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                Page 7 of 11<\/span><\/p>\n
    3. The disclosure of the information would lead to unwarranted invasion of the
\n      privacy of the individual.\n<\/p>\n
Certain human rights such as liberty, freedom of expression or right to life are universal
\nand therefore would apply uniformly to all human-beings worldwide. However, the
\nconcept of ‘privacy’ is a cultural notion, related to social norms, and different societies
\nwould look at these differently. Therefore referring to laws of other countries to define
\n‘privacy’ cannot be considered a valid exercise to constrain the Citizen’s fundamental
\nRight to Information in India.\n<\/p>\n
Parliament has not codified the right to privacy so far, hence in balancing the Right to
\nInformation of Citizens and the individual’s Right to Privacy the Citizen’s Right to
\nInformation would be given greater weightage.\n<\/p>\n
The State has no right to invade the privacy of an individual. There are some
\nextraordinary situations where the State may be allowed to invade the privacy of a
\nCitizen. In those circumstances special provisions of the law apply; usually with certain
\nsafeguards.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore where the State routinely obtains information from Citizens, this information is
\nin relationship to a public activity and will not be an intrusion on privacy. As this
\ninformation has been provided by the assessee to meet his legal obligations, there is no
\nunwarranted invasion of his privacy by the state. Therefore the disclosure of the same
\ninformation to another person cannot be construed as being an unwarranted invasion of
\nthe privacy of the individual.\n<\/p>\n
Given our dismal record of misgovernance and rampant corruption which colludes to
\ndeny Citizens their essential rights and dignity, it is in the fitness of things that the
\nCitizen’s Right to Information is given greater primacy with regard to privacy.\n<\/p>\n
Hence information provided by individuals in fulfillment of statutory requirements
\nwill not be covered by the exemption under Section 8 (1) (j).\n<\/p>\n
 It has come out during the hearing before the Commission,- and through the submissions
\nmade by the various parties,- that the Appellant is an informer for the Department.
\nEscorts has also raised the matter in its written submissions of 17 September 2009, and
\nasked the Commission to decide “Whether an informer of the I.T. department can seek
\ninformation in respect of the records of a third party for an ulterior motive?” The ulterior
\nmotive being referred to appears to be the reward money which the appellant might get.\n<\/p>\n
The Appellant has given a list of additions made by various Tax evasion officers relating
\nto the information being sought by him:\n<\/p>\n
Escorts Limited. Page K-5 of Letter dated 22\/9\/2009
\n                                                      A Y 2001-2
\nEscorts limited . Page k-5 & k-7                      Amount in
\n                                                                               Page 8 of 11<\/span>
\n                                                      Crore
\nAddition Income( Tax evasions) by Assessing
\nOfficer                                              106.94
\nOn Hospital theft case only                          88.11
\nOn Hospital theft case confirmed by CIT (A)          86.40
\nITAT had reduce hospital theft case amount           Zero<\/p>\n
Mr Rajan Nanda . Page K-12 of Letter dated 22\/9\/2009
\n                                                     A Y 2003-4
\n                                                     Amount in
\n                                                     Crore
\nAddition Income( Tax evasions) by Assessing
\nOfficer                                              8.05
\nAddition Income( Tax evasions) confirmed by CIT
\n(A)                                                  8.05
\nAddition Income ( Tax evasions) confirmed by
\nITAT                                                 0.35<\/p>\n
Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Chandigarh
\nPage K-10 of Letter dated 22\/9\/2009
\nPage k -10                                                                  A Y 2001-2
\nEscorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Chandigarh ( Society) .           Amount in
\nPageK 12                                                                    Crore
\nAddition Income( Tax evasions) by Assessing Officer                               154.34
\nAddition Income( Tax evasions) confirmed by CIT (A)                               149.08
\n ITAT had remanded back case to Assessing officer to reassess tax evasion<\/p>\n
Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Limited Chandigarh
\nPage K-11 of Letter dated 22\/9\/2009
\n                                                         Amount in
\n                                                         Crore
\n                                                         A Y 2003-\n<\/p>\n
                                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
Addition Income( Tax evasions) by Assessing Officer         100.68
\nAddition Income( Tax evasions) confirmed by CIT (A)            0.13
\nNo appeal by assesee and income tax department.\n<\/p>\n
Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Delhi ( Society)
\nPage K-8 of Letter dated 22\/9\/2009
\n                                                         A y 2001-\n<\/p>\n
                                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                         Amount in
\n                                                         Crore
\nAddition Income( Tax evasions) by Assessing Officer         156.44<\/p>\n
Further Proceeding are stayed by Delhi High Court
\nVide WP ( C ) 11909\/2005 on assesee appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Dr Naresh Trehan
\nPage K-9 of Letter dated 22\/9\/2009
\n                                                             A Y 2001-2
\n                                                                             Page 9 of 11<\/span>
\n                                                               Amount in
\n                                                                 Crore
\nAddition Income( Tax evasions) by Assessing Officer              10.08
\nAddition Income( Tax evasions) confirmed by CIT (A)               14.7
\nITAT had remanded back case to Assessing officer to reassess tax
\nevasion<\/p>\n
Big Apple Clothing (P) Limited
\nPage K-13 of Letter dated 22\/9\/2009
\n                                                           A Y 2001-2
\n                                                           Amount in
\n                                                           Crore
\nAddition Income( Tax evasions) by Assessing Officer              6.44
\nAddition Income( Tax evasions) confirmed by CIT (A)              7.35
\n appeal pending with ITAT<\/p>\n
AAA Portfolio (P) Limited
\nPage K-14 of Letter dated 22\/9\/2009
\n                                                           A y 2001-\n<\/p>\n
                                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                           Amount in
\n                                                           Crore
\nAddition Income( Tax evasions) by Assessing Officer               8.5
\nAddition Income( Tax evasions) confirmed by ITAT                 6.81<\/p>\n
Thus the appellant has pointed out that Assessing officers have added hundreds of crores
\nas additional income and CIT (A) has also confirmed some of them. He fears that a lot of
\nalleged tax evasion will go unpunished leading to a loss of revenue and perhaps his
\nreward money. If Citizens monitor this through RTI, it could be a major gain for public
\nrevenue and perhaps a good check on corrupt officials.\n<\/p>\n
It has been statutorily provided that informers to the Income tax Department would be
\nrewarded. Hence the State has recognized that the informer who gives information about
\ntax evasion is valued and needs to be rewarded to motivate and recognize the contribution
\nof the informer. Therefore, if the Appellant is assisting the Department by bringing
\ninstances of tax evasion to its notice, and if he is using information that he has received
\nthrough RTI Applications for this purpose, it cannot be considered to be misuse of
\ninformation in any way, nor can it be considered to be an unwarranted invasion of
\nprivacy of the assessee. In that case even if any of the exemption clauses of Section 8 (1)
\nwere applicable it certainly serves a larger public interest, if tax evasion is curbed. It is
\nthe stated objective of the Act, – as spelt out in its preamble,- to curb corruption and it is
\nwidely accepted that evasion of taxes is facilitated because of large scale corruption in
\nGovernment offices.\n<\/p>\n
Hence, the arguments raised by Dr. Trehan that the RTI application is motivated by ill
\nwill and malice, with the motive to harass and blackmail the assessee are unfounded
\nbecause as stated above a public interest is served if tax evasion is curbed. Further no
\nharm can be caused to the privacy of Dr. Trehan in this case because the assessing
\nauthority in this case has already confirmed that in some cases tax has been evaded. The
\ncontention that the Appellant is likely to misuse the information and could endanger the
\nlife and property of the assessee also cannot be accepted. Denying information under the
\nRTI Act on the mere apprehension that there is likelihood that the information sought can
\nbe misused would defeat the very objective of the RTI Act which seeks to ensure the
\n                                                                               Page 10 of 11<\/span>
\n information is freely accessed. Thus if an informer is using RTI to get information which
\ncould help him to claim a reward by showing that tax has been evaded, it cannot be
\ndenied that a large public interest is being served of getting the public’s due taxes and
\ncurbing corruption.\n<\/p>\n
The Commission concludes that no case has been made showing that any of the
\nexemption clauses apply to the information sought by the appellant. The onus to prove
\nthat a denial of information was justified is on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI
\nAct. Though it is not necessary, the appellant has also shown that a larger public interest
\nof increasing public revenue and reducing corruption may be served by disclosure of the
\ninformation, which would outweigh any harm to any protected interest.\n<\/p>\n
The Appeal is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
The PIO is directed to provide the inspection of the records and also the other
\ninformation sought by the appellant before 15 January 2009. The Respondent is further
\ndirected to send a copy of this order to the Third parties immediately.\n<\/p>\n
This decision is announced in open chamber.\n<\/p>\n
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
\nAny information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                  Shailesh Gandhi
\n                                                                        Information Commissioner
\n                                                                                14 December 2009<\/p>\n
    In any case correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number)<\/p>\n
                                                                                          Page 11 of 11<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Cit on 14 December, 2009 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building, Old JNU Campus, Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi 110 067. Tel: +91 11 26161796 Decision No. CIC\/LS\/A\/2009\/000647\/SG\/5887 Appeal No. CIC\/LS\/A\/2009\/000647 Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, 102, SFS Flats DDA, C […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-183386","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Cit on 14 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cit-on-14-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Cit on 14 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cit-on-14-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-15T06:20:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cit-on-14-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cit-on-14-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Cit on 14 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-15T06:20:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cit-on-14-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":4645,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cit-on-14-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cit-on-14-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cit-on-14-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Cit on 14 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-15T06:20:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cit-on-14-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cit-on-14-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cit-on-14-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Cit on 14 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Cit on 14 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cit-on-14-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Cit on 14 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cit-on-14-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-15T06:20:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cit-on-14-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cit-on-14-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Cit on 14 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-15T06:20:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cit-on-14-december-2009"},"wordCount":4645,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cit-on-14-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cit-on-14-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cit-on-14-december-2009","name":"Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Cit on 14 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-15T06:20:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cit-on-14-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cit-on-14-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-cit-on-14-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Cit on 14 December, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183386","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=183386"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183386\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=183386"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=183386"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=183386"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}