{"id":190705,"date":"2011-03-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-manoj-kumar-saini-jaipur-vs-oo-addl-commissioner-of-it-on-24-march-2011"},"modified":"2017-11-15T08:46:25","modified_gmt":"2017-11-15T03:16:25","slug":"sh-manoj-kumar-saini-jaipur-vs-oo-addl-commissioner-of-it-on-24-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-manoj-kumar-saini-jaipur-vs-oo-addl-commissioner-of-it-on-24-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Sh. Manoj Kumar Saini, Jaipur vs O\/O Addl.Commissioner Of It, … on 24 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Sh. Manoj Kumar Saini, Jaipur vs O\/O Addl.Commissioner Of It, … on 24 March, 2011<\/div>\n
                Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission\n    Room\u00a0No.296,\u00a0II\u00a0Floor,\u00a0B\u00a0Wing,\u00a0August\u00a0Kranti\u00a0Bhawan,\u00a0Bhikaji\u00a0Cama\u00a0\n                         Place,\u00a0New\u00a0Delhi\u00ad110066\n          Telefax:011\u00ad26180532\u00a0&\u00a0011\u00ad26107254\u00a0website\u00adcic.gov.in\n\n             \u00a0Appeal\u00a0:\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/LS\/A\/2010\/001044\u00adDS\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0Appellant\u00a0\/Complainant          :      \u00a0\u00a0Sh.\u00a0Manoj\u00a0Kumar\u00a0Saini,\u00a0\nJaipur\nPublic\u00a0Authority                 :      \u00a0The\u00a0Chief\u00a0Commissioner,\u00a0\nIncome\u00a0Tax,\n                                 \u00a0Jaipur\u00a0(Sh.Amrit\u00a0Meena,\u00a0CPIO\u00a0-\u00a0\nthrough\n                                 Videoconferencing)\n\nDate\u00a0of\u00a0Hearing\u00a0                 :      03\u00a0Jan,\u00a02011\nDate\u00a0of\u00a0Decision                 :      24\u00a0March,\u00a02011\u00a0\n\u00a0\nFACTS<\/pre>\n
\u00a0OF\u00a0THE\u00a0CASE:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
    1. Vide\u00a0his\u00a0RTI\u00a0Application\u00a0dated\u00a015.09.2009,\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0<\/p>\n
       sought \u00a0 information \u00a0 pertaining \u00a0 to \u00a0 income \u00a0 tax \u00a0 returns \u00a0 of\u00a0<\/p>\n
       his\u00a0father\u00adin\u00adlaw\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0period\u00a02000\u00a0to\u00a0date\u00a0along\u00a0with\u00a0<\/p>\n
       the\u00a0information\u00a0pertaining\u00a0to\u00a0process\u00a0for\u00a0initiating\u00a0tax\u00a0<\/p>\n
       evasion\u00a0petition.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    2. The \u00a0 CPIO \u00a0 vide \u00a0 his \u00a0 order \u00a0 dated \u00a0 06.10.2009 \u00a0 denied\u00a0<\/p>\n
       disclosure \u00a0 of \u00a0 information \u00a0 citing \u00a0 the \u00a0 provisions \u00a0 of\u00a0<\/p>\n
       Section \u00a0 8(1)(j) \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 RTI \u00a0 Act, \u00a0 2005 \u00a0 (hereinafter \u00a0 “the\u00a0<\/p>\n
       Act”).\u00a0Information\u00a0was\u00a0provided\u00a0pertaining\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0process\u00a0<\/p>\n
       of\u00a0submitting\u00a0tax\u00a0evasion\u00a0petition.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    3. The \u00a0 Applicant \u00a0 preferred \u00a0 appeal \u00a0 dated \u00a0 13.10.2009 \u00a0 before\u00a0<\/p>\n
       the \u00a0 FAA \u00a0 who \u00a0 adjudicated \u00a0 upon \u00a0 it \u00a0 vide \u00a0 his \u00a0 order \u00a0 of\u00a0<\/p>\n
       06.11.2009 \u00a0 by \u00a0 upholding \u00a0 the \u00a0 order \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 CPIO \u00a0 and\u00a0<\/p>\n
       dismissing\u00a0the\u00a0appeal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 4. The\u00a0Applicant\u00a0has\u00a0come\u00a0before\u00a0this\u00a0Commission\u00a0in\u00a0second\u00a0<\/p>\n
  appeal. \u00a0 The \u00a0 Appellant \u00a0 made \u00a0 an \u00a0 impassioned \u00a0 plea \u00a0 for\u00a0<\/p>\n
  disclosure \u00a0 of \u00a0 information \u00a0 sought \u00a0 by \u00a0 him \u00a0 on \u00a0 the \u00a0 grounds\u00a0<\/p>\n
  that \u00a0 he \u00a0 was \u00a0 a \u00a0 young \u00a0 man \u00a0 who \u00a0 is \u00a0 involved \u00a0 in \u00a0 defending\u00a0<\/p>\n
  himself\u00a0in\u00a0a\u00a0criminal\u00a0case\u00a0against\u00a0the\u00a0State\u00a0of\u00a0Rajasthan\u00a0<\/p>\n
  pertaining \u00a0 to \u00a0 dowry \u00a0 related \u00a0 issues. \u00a0 He \u00a0 emphasized \u00a0 that\u00a0<\/p>\n
  the \u00a0 litigation \u00a0 was \u00a0 not \u00a0 a \u00a0 private \u00a0 matter \u00a0 against \u00a0 his\u00a0<\/p>\n
  wife \u00a0 \/ \u00a0 father\u00adin\u00adlaw \u00a0 and \u00a0 therefore, \u00a0 the \u00a0 denial \u00a0 of\u00a0<\/p>\n
  information \u00a0 could \u00a0 not \u00a0 be \u00a0 justified \u00a0 on \u00a0 the \u00a0 grounds \u00a0 that\u00a0<\/p>\n
  there\u00a0was\u00a0no\u00a0public\u00a0interest\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0matter\u00a0and\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
  issue \u00a0 was \u00a0 purely \u00a0 a \u00a0 personal \u00a0 one. \u00a0 The \u00a0 Appellant \u00a0 stated\u00a0<\/p>\n
  that \u00a0 in \u00a0 a \u00a0 welfare \u00a0 state, \u00a0 such \u00a0 as \u00a0 ours, \u00a0 the \u00a0 life \u00a0 and\u00a0<\/p>\n
  security\u00a0of\u00a0every\u00a0individual\u00a0was\u00a0a\u00a0matter\u00a0which\u00a0involved\u00a0<\/p>\n
  the\u00a0state.\u00a0Denial\u00a0of\u00a0information\u00a0to\u00a0him\u00a0would\u00a0result\u00a0in\u00a0a\u00a0<\/p>\n
  prolonged \u00a0 litigation \u00a0 of \u00a0 10 \u00a0 years \u00a0 and \u00a0 more \u00a0 resulting \u00a0 in\u00a0<\/p>\n
  his\u00a0losing\u00a0the\u00a0best\u00a0years\u00a0of\u00a0his\u00a0life\u00a0and\u00a0career.<\/p>\n
5. Respondent\u00a0stated\u00a0that\u00a0he\u00a0had\u00a0ascertained\u00a0that\u00a0Shri\u00a0Munna\u00a0<\/p>\n
  Lal\u00a0Saini\u00a0does\u00a0 not\u00a0 file\u00a0 any\u00a0income\u00a0 tax\u00a0returns\u00a0 in\u00a0this\u00a0<\/p>\n
  income\u00a0tax\u00a0office\u00a0–\u00a0Ward\u00a03(1).\u00a0Appellant\u00a0stated\u00a0that\u00a0with\u00a0<\/p>\n
  the\u00a0issue\u00a0of\u00a0PAN\u00a0card\u00a0which\u00a0is\u00a0a\u00a0unique\u00a0number,\u00a0it\u00a0will\u00a0<\/p>\n
  not \u00a0 be \u00a0 difficult\u00a0 to \u00a0 ascertain\u00a0 in \u00a0 which \u00a0 ward \u00a0 Shri \u00a0 Saini\u00a0<\/p>\n
  was\u00a0filing\u00a0his\u00a0returns.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                        DECISION\u00a0NOTICE:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6. I\u00a0have\u00a0carefully\u00a0considered\u00a0the\u00a0submissions\u00a0made\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
  Appellant\u00a0with\u00a0great\u00a0thrust\u00a0and\u00a0also\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
 7. The \u00a0 conviction \u00a0 and \u00a0 thrust \u00a0 with \u00a0 which \u00a0 the \u00a0 Appellant \u00a0 had\u00a0<\/p>\n
   pursued\u00a0his\u00a0case\u00a0and\u00a0made\u00a0his\u00a0submission\u00a0explaining\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
   reasons\u00a0for\u00a0which\u00a0he\u00a0needs\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0are\u00a0plausible.\u00a0<\/p>\n
   But, \u00a0 however \u00a0 unfortunate \u00a0 as \u00a0 it \u00a0 may \u00a0 seem, \u00a0 the \u00a0 noise \u00a0 of\u00a0<\/p>\n
   motivation\u00a0behind\u00a0seeking\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0falls\u00a0upon\u00a0deaf\u00a0<\/p>\n
   ears\u00a0as\u00a0far\u00a0as\u00a0the\u00a0Act\u00a0is\u00a0concerned.\u00a0Section\u00a06(2)\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
   Act \u00a0 clearly \u00a0 states \u00a0 that \u00a0 the \u00a0 Applicant \u00a0 shall \u00a0 not \u00a0 be\u00a0<\/p>\n
   required \u00a0 to \u00a0 give \u00a0 any \u00a0 reason \u00a0 for \u00a0 requesting \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n
   information. \u00a0 Thus, \u00a0 the \u00a0 Act \u00a0 does \u00a0 not \u00a0 aim \u00a0 to \u00a0 judge \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n
   motivation \u00a0 or \u00a0 the \u00a0 reason \u00a0 behind \u00a0 seeking \u00a0 certain\u00a0<\/p>\n
   information,\u00a0as\u00a0each\u00a0applicant\u00a0may\u00a0have\u00a0a\u00a0different\u00a0line\u00a0<\/p>\n
   of \u00a0 reasoning, \u00a0 each \u00a0 one \u00a0 being \u00a0 equally \u00a0 passionate \u00a0 and\u00a0<\/p>\n
   emotionally\u00a0driven.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8. What, \u00a0 in \u00a0 fact, \u00a0 matters \u00a0 is \u00a0 whether \u00a0 certain \u00a0 information\u00a0<\/p>\n
   which\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0sought\u00a0can\u00a0actually\u00a0be\u00a0furnished\u00a0under\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
   Act.\u00a0The\u00a0information\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0classified\u00a0as\u00a0either\u00a0public\u00a0<\/p>\n
   information\u00a0or\u00a0personal\u00a0information\u00a0under\u00a0the\u00a0Act.\u00a0There\u00a0<\/p>\n
   is \u00a0 no \u00a0 question \u00a0 of \u00a0 doubt \u00a0 whatsoever \u00a0 that \u00a0 every \u00a0 public\u00a0<\/p>\n
   information\u00a0need\u00a0be\u00a0furnished\u00a0upon\u00a0receiving\u00a0a\u00a0request\u00a0to\u00a0<\/p>\n
   that \u00a0 effect. \u00a0 However, \u00a0 in \u00a0 case \u00a0 of \u00a0 personal \u00a0 information,\u00a0<\/p>\n
   the \u00a0 Act \u00a0 stands \u00a0 on \u00a0 a \u00a0 different\u00a0 footing, \u00a0 and \u00a0 the \u00a0 present\u00a0<\/p>\n
   appeal \u00a0 before \u00a0 us \u00a0 is \u00a0 the \u00a0 best \u00a0 example \u00a0 of \u00a0 that. \u00a0 The\u00a0<\/p>\n
   Applicant\u00a0has\u00a0to\u00a0satisfy\u00a0the\u00a0legislative\u00a0intent\u00a0enshrined\u00a0<\/p>\n
   in \u00a0 Sections \u00a0 8(1)(j) \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 Act \u00a0 which \u00a0 mandates \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n
   requirement\u00a0of\u00a0“larger\u00a0public\u00a0interest”\u00a0that\u00a0can\u00a0justify\u00a0<\/p>\n
   the\u00a0disclosure\u00a0of\u00a0such\u00a0personal\u00a0information.<\/p>\n
9. Section\u00a08(1)(j)\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Act\u00a0is\u00a0as\u00a0follows:\n<\/p>\n
          “8. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be
\n         no obligation to give any citizen,–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         XXX XXX XXX
\n         XXX XXX XXX\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure
\n         of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or
\n         which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the
\n         individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State
\n         Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may
\n         be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of
\n         such information:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the
\n         Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
10.      Now \u00a0 I \u00a0 shall \u00a0 deal \u00a0 with \u00a0 each \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 respective\u00a0<\/p>\n
  contentions\u00a0raised\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0appeal\u00a0before\u00a0<\/p>\n
  me.\n<\/p>\n
11.      The \u00a0 Appellant \u00a0 has \u00a0 contended \u00a0 that \u00a0 the \u00a0 information\u00a0<\/p>\n
  pertaining\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Income\u00a0Tax\u00a0returns\u00a0filed\u00a0by\u00a0his\u00a0father\u00ad<\/p>\n
  in\u00adlaw\u00a0is\u00a0an\u00a0information\u00a0within\u00a0the\u00a0ambit\u00a0of\u00a0Proviso\u00a0to\u00a0<\/p>\n
  Section\u00a08(1)(j), \u00a0i.e.\u00a0 those\u00a0IT\u00a0returns\u00a0cannot\u00a0be\u00a0denied\u00a0<\/p>\n
  to\u00a0the\u00a0Parliament\u00a0or\u00a0a\u00a0State\u00a0Legislature.\u00a0Here,\u00a0we\u00a0look\u00a0<\/p>\n
  towards \u00a0 the \u00a0 enlargement \u00a0 of \u00a0 intent \u00a0 of \u00a0 this \u00a0 proviso \u00a0 by\u00a0<\/p>\n
  Hon’ble\u00a0Sanjiv\u00a0Khanna\u00a0J.\u00a0in\u00a0his\u00a0decision\u00a0dated\u00a030.11.2009\u00a0<\/p>\n
  in\u00a0 \u00a0Writ\u00a0Petition\u00a0(Civil)\u00a0Nos..\u00a08396\/2009,\u00a0 \u00a016907\/2006,\u00a0<\/p>\n
  4788\/2008, \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 9914\/2009, \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 6085\/2008, \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 7304\/2007,\u00a0<\/p>\n
  7930\/2009 \u00a0 AND \u00a0 3607 \u00a0 OF \u00a0 2007, \u00a0wherein \u00a0he \u00a0 stated \u00a0 ” \u00a0 The\u00a0<\/p>\n
  proviso\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0present\u00a0cases\u00a0is\u00a0a\u00a0guiding\u00a0factor\u00a0and\u00a0not\u00a0<\/p>\n
  a \u00a0 substantive \u00a0 provision \u00a0 which \u00a0 overrides \u00a0 Section \u00a0 8(1)(j)\u00a0<\/p>\n
  of\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0Act.\u00a0It\u00a0does\u00a0not\u00a0undo\u00a0or\u00a0rewrite\u00a0Section\u00a08(1)<\/p>\n
  (j) \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 RTI \u00a0 Act \u00a0 and \u00a0 does \u00a0 not \u00a0 itself \u00a0 create \u00a0 any \u00a0 new\u00a0
\n right.\u00a0The\u00a0purpose\u00a0is\u00a0only\u00a0to\u00a0clarify\u00a0that\u00a0while\u00a0deciding\u00a0<\/p>\n
the\u00a0question\u00a0of\u00a0larger\u00a0public\u00a0interest\u00a0i.e.\u00a0the\u00a0question\u00a0<\/p>\n
of\u00a0balance\u00a0between\u00a0‘\u00a0public\u00a0interest\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0form\u00a0of\u00a0right\u00a0<\/p>\n
to\u00a0privacy\u00a0and\u00a0‘public\u00a0interest\u00a0in\u00a0access\u00a0to\u00a0information\u00a0<\/p>\n
is\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0balanced.”\u00a0It\u00a0is\u00a0now\u00a0apposite\u00a0to\u00a0peruse\u00a0through\u00a0<\/p>\n
Section \u00a0 138 \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 Income \u00a0 Tax \u00a0 Act, \u00a0 1961 \u00a0 (43 \u00a0 of \u00a0 1961),\u00a0<\/p>\n
which\u00a0is\u00a0as\u00a0follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      “Section 138 – DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION RESPECTING
\n      ASSESSEES.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (1)<\/span><\/p>\n
      (a) The Board or any other income-tax authority specified by it by a
\n      general or special order in this behalf may furnish or cause to be
\n      furnished to –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (i) Any officer, authority or body performing any functions under any
\n      law relating to the imposition of any tax, duty or cess, or to dealings
\n      in foreign exchange as defined in section 2(d) of the Foreign
\n      Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (7 of 1947); or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (ii) Such officer, authority or body performing functions under any
\n      other law as the Central Government may, if in its opinion it is
\n      necessary so to do in the public interest, specify by notification in the
\n      Official Gazette in this behalf, any such information received or
\n      obtained by any income-tax authority in the performance of his
\n      functions under this Act as may, in the opinion of the Board or other
\n      income-tax authority, be necessary for the purpose of enabling the
\n      officer, authority or body to perform his or its functions under that
\n      law.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (b) Where a person makes an application to the Chief Commissioner
\n      or    Commissioner in the prescribed form for any information
\n      relating to any assessee received or obtained by any income-tax
\n      authority     in the performance of his functions under this Act,
\n      the Chief      Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he is satisfied
\n      that it is in the public interest so to do,                furnish or
\n      cause to be furnished the information asked for and his decision in
\n      this behalf shall be final and shall not be called in question in any
\n      court of law.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or any
\n        other law for the time being in force, the Central Government may,
\n        having regard to the practices and usages customary or any other
\n        relevant factors, by order notified in the Official Gazette, direct that
\n        no information or document shall be furnished or produced by a
\n        public servant in respect of such matters relating to such class of
\n        assesses or except to such authorities as may be specified in the
\n        order.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
12.     The\u00a0legislative\u00a0mandate\u00a0is\u00a0absolutely\u00a0clear\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
  front\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Income\u00a0Tax\u00a0Returns\u00a0of\u00a0an\u00a0assessee\u00a0are\u00a0held\u00a0<\/p>\n
  by \u00a0 the \u00a0 Chief \u00a0 Commissioner, \u00a0 Income \u00a0 Tax \u00a0 only \u00a0 and \u00a0 such\u00a0<\/p>\n
  cannot\u00a0be\u00a0accessed\u00a0by\u00a0any\u00a0other\u00a0body\u00a0or\u00a0authority\u00a0except\u00a0<\/p>\n
  when \u00a0 the \u00a0 Chief \u00a0 Commissioner \u00a0 himself \u00a0 is \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 opinion\u00a0<\/p>\n
  that\u00a0such\u00a0returns\u00a0be\u00a0furnished\u00a0to\u00a0a\u00a0third\u00a0party\u00a0in\u00a0light\u00a0<\/p>\n
  of \u00a0 public \u00a0 interest. \u00a0 In \u00a0 R. \u00a0 K. \u00a0 Jain \u00a0 Vs. \u00a0 Union \u00a0 of \u00a0 India\u00a0<\/p>\n
  (1993)\u00a04\u00a0SCC\u00a0120\u00a0it\u00a0was\u00a0held\u00a0that\u00a0factors\u00a0to\u00a0decide\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
  public \u00a0 interest \u00a0 immunity \u00a0 would \u00a0 include \u00a0 (a) \u00a0 where \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n
  contents\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0documents\u00a0are\u00a0relied\u00a0upon,\u00a0the\u00a0interests\u00a0<\/p>\n
  affected \u00a0 by \u00a0 their \u00a0 disclosure; \u00a0 (b) \u00a0 where \u00a0 the \u00a0 class \u00a0 of\u00a0<\/p>\n
  documents \u00a0 is \u00a0 invoked, \u00a0 whether \u00a0 the \u00a0 public \u00a0 interest\u00a0<\/p>\n
  immunity\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0class\u00a0is\u00a0said\u00a0to\u00a0protect;\u00a0(c)\u00a0the\u00a0extent\u00a0<\/p>\n
  to\u00a0which\u00a0the\u00a0interests\u00a0referred\u00a0to\u00a0have\u00a0become\u00a0attenuated\u00a0<\/p>\n
  by\u00a0the\u00a0passage\u00a0of\u00a0time\u00a0or\u00a0the\u00a0occurrence\u00a0of\u00a0intervening\u00a0<\/p>\n
  events \u00a0 since \u00a0 the \u00a0 matter \u00a0 contained \u00a0 in \u00a0 the \u00a0 documents\u00a0<\/p>\n
  themselves \u00a0 came \u00a0 into \u00a0 existence; \u00a0 (d) \u00a0 the \u00a0 seriousness \u00a0 of\u00a0<\/p>\n
  the\u00a0issue\u00a0in\u00a0relation\u00a0to\u00a0which\u00a0the\u00a0production\u00a0is\u00a0sought;\u00a0<\/p>\n
  (e)\u00a0the\u00a0likelihood\u00a0that\u00a0production\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0documents\u00a0will\u00a0<\/p>\n
  affect\u00a0the\u00a0outcome\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0case;\u00a0(f)\u00a0the\u00a0likelihood\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
  injustice\u00a0 if \u00a0 the\u00a0 documents\u00a0 are \u00a0 not\u00a0 produced……” \u00a0 \u00a0 It\u00a0 was\u00a0
\n   further\u00a0stated\u00a0“The\u00a0courts\u00a0would\u00a0allow\u00a0the\u00a0objection\u00a0if\u00a0<\/p>\n
  it\u00a0finds\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0documents\u00a0relates\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0affairs\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
  state\u00a0and\u00a0its\u00a0disclosure\u00a0would\u00a0be\u00a0injurious\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0public\u00a0<\/p>\n
  interest, \u00a0 but \u00a0 on \u00a0 the \u00a0 other \u00a0 hand, \u00a0 if \u00a0 it \u00a0 reaches \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n
  conclusion \u00a0 that \u00a0 the \u00a0 document \u00a0 does \u00a0 not \u00a0 relate \u00a0 to \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n
  affairs \u00a0 of \u00a0 state \u00a0 or \u00a0 that \u00a0 the \u00a0 public \u00a0 interest \u00a0 does \u00a0 not\u00a0<\/p>\n
  compel\u00a0its\u00a0non\u00addisclosure\u00a0or\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0public\u00a0interest\u00a0in\u00a0<\/p>\n
  the \u00a0 administration \u00a0 of \u00a0 justice \u00a0 in \u00a0 the \u00a0 particular \u00a0 case\u00a0<\/p>\n
  before\u00a0it\u00a0overrides\u00a0all\u00a0other\u00a0aspects\u00a0of\u00a0public\u00a0interest,\u00a0<\/p>\n
  it \u00a0 will \u00a0 overrule \u00a0 the \u00a0 objection \u00a0 and \u00a0 order \u00a0 disclosure \u00a0 of\u00a0<\/p>\n
  the\u00a0document”.\u00a0\u00a0I\u00a0am\u00a0inclined\u00a0to\u00a0say\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0<\/p>\n
  sought\u00a0is\u00a0not\u00a0granted\u00a0immunity\u00a0from\u00a0disclosure\u00a0as\u00a0class\u00a0<\/p>\n
  of \u00a0 information. \u00a0 Protection \u00a0 of \u00a0 disclosure \u00a0 has \u00a0 to \u00a0 be\u00a0<\/p>\n
  ensured\u00a0by\u00a0balancing\u00a0the\u00a0two\u00a0competing\u00a0aspects\u00a0of\u00a0public\u00a0<\/p>\n
  interest \u00a0 i.e. \u00a0 when \u00a0 disclosure \u00a0 would \u00a0 cause \u00a0 injury \u00a0 or\u00a0<\/p>\n
  unwarranted\u00a0invasion\u00a0of\u00a0privacy\u00a0and\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0other\u00a0hand\u00a0if\u00a0<\/p>\n
  non\u00addisclosure \u00a0 would \u00a0 throttle \u00a0 the \u00a0 administration \u00a0 of\u00a0<\/p>\n
  justice.\n<\/p>\n
13.     It \u00a0 brings \u00a0 me \u00a0 to \u00a0 the \u00a0 second \u00a0 contention \u00a0 of \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n
  Appellant \u00a0 which \u00a0 revolves \u00a0 around \u00a0 the \u00a0 concept \u00a0 of \u00a0 “larger\u00a0<\/p>\n
  public\u00a0interest”.\u00a0According\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant,\u00a0the\u00a0“State”\u00a0<\/p>\n
  is \u00a0 pursuing \u00a0 a \u00a0 criminal \u00a0 case \u00a0 against \u00a0 him \u00a0 and \u00a0 that \u00a0 since\u00a0<\/p>\n
  “State” \u00a0 has \u00a0 decided \u00a0 to \u00a0 prosecute \u00a0 him \u00a0 because \u00a0 of \u00a0 legal\u00a0<\/p>\n
  fiction\u00a0created\u00a0under\u00a0Section\u00a0405\u00a0of\u00a0IPC,\u00a0automatically\u00a0a\u00a0<\/p>\n
  “larger \u00a0 public \u00a0 interest” \u00a0 is \u00a0 involved \u00a0 in \u00a0 the \u00a0 matter.\u00a0<\/p>\n
  Section \u00a0 405 \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 IPC \u00a0 states \u00a0 that\u00a0 “Whoever, \u00a0 being \u00a0 in\u00a0<\/p>\n
  any\u00a0manner\u00a0entrusted\u00a0with\u00a0property,\u00a0or\u00a0with\u00a0any\u00a0dominion\u00a0
\n   over\u00a0property,\u00a0dishonestly\u00a0misappropriates\u00a0or\u00a0converts\u00a0to\u00a0<\/p>\n
  his \u00a0 own \u00a0 use \u00a0 that \u00a0 property, \u00a0 or \u00a0 dishonestly \u00a0 uses \u00a0 or \u00a0<\/p>\n
  disposes\u00a0of\u00a0that\u00a0property\u00a0in\u00a0violation\u00a0of\u00a0any\u00a0direction\u00a0<\/p>\n
  of\u00a0law\u00a0prescribing\u00a0the\u00a0mode\u00a0in\u00a0which\u00a0such\u00a0trust\u00a0is\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0<\/p>\n
  discharged,\u00a0or\u00a0of\u00a0any\u00a0legal\u00a0contract,\u00a0express\u00a0or\u00a0implied,\u00a0<\/p>\n
  which\u00a0he\u00a0has\u00a0made\u00a0touching\u00a0the\u00a0discharge\u00a0of\u00a0such\u00a0trust,\u00a0<\/p>\n
  or\u00a0willfully\u00a0suffers\u00a0any\u00a0other\u00a0person\u00a0so\u00a0to\u00a0do,\u00a0commits\u00a0<\/p>\n
  ‘criminal\u00a0breach\u00a0of\u00a0trust’.”\u00a0Dowry\u00a0Cases\u00a0invariably\u00a0have\u00a0<\/p>\n
  the\u00a0component\u00a0of\u00a0‘Criminal\u00a0Breach\u00a0of\u00a0Trust’\u00a0relating\u00a0to\u00a0<\/p>\n
  misappropriation\u00a0 of\u00a0 property.\u00a0 In\u00a0 case,\u00a0 the\u00a0 State\u00a0 relies\u00a0<\/p>\n
  upon \u00a0 the \u00a0 fiction \u00a0 of \u00a0 misappropriation, \u00a0 then \u00a0 the \u00a0 other\u00a0<\/p>\n
  party\u00a0should\u00a0have\u00a0a\u00a0right\u00a0to\u00a0know\u00a0the\u00a0details\u00a0of\u00a0property\u00a0<\/p>\n
  reflected \u00a0 in \u00a0 IT \u00a0 Returns \u00a0 which \u00a0 is \u00a0 alleged \u00a0 to \u00a0 be\u00a0<\/p>\n
  misappropriated.\n<\/p>\n
14.     The \u00a0 mandate \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 RTI \u00a0 Act \u00a0 to \u00a0 disclose \u00a0 personal\u00a0<\/p>\n
  information\u00a0under\u00a0Section\u00a08(1)(j)\u00a0is\u00a0even\u00a0stricter\u00a0since\u00a0<\/p>\n
  it\u00a0appends\u00a0the\u00a0expression\u00a0“larger”\u00a0to\u00a0“public\u00a0interest”.\u00a0<\/p>\n
  Mere\u00a0public\u00a0interest\u00a0will\u00a0not\u00a0suffice\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0disclosure\u00a0<\/p>\n
  of \u00a0 personal \u00a0 information \u00a0 such \u00a0 as \u00a0 the \u00a0 IT \u00a0 Returns \u00a0 of \u00a0 an\u00a0<\/p>\n
  assessee\u00a0unless\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0can\u00a0prove\u00a0that\u00a0a\u00a0“larger”\u00a0<\/p>\n
  public \u00a0 interest \u00a0 demands \u00a0 such \u00a0 disclosure. \u00a0 The \u00a0 expression\u00a0<\/p>\n
  “larger” \u00a0 cannot \u00a0 be \u00a0 defined \u00a0 or \u00a0 carved \u00a0 into \u00a0 a \u00a0 straight\u00ad<\/p>\n
  jacketed \u00a0 formula \u00a0 and \u00a0 neither \u00a0 can \u00a0 it \u00a0 be \u00a0 easily \u00a0 disposed\u00a0<\/p>\n
  of.\u00a0If\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0incessantly\u00a0stresses\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0argument\u00a0<\/p>\n
  that \u00a0 false \u00a0 dowry \u00a0 cases \u00a0 are \u00a0 a \u00a0 matter \u00a0 of \u00a0 “larger \u00a0 public\u00a0<\/p>\n
  interest”\u00a0and\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0relating\u00a0to\u00a0IT\u00a0returns\u00a0<\/p>\n
  of\u00a0his\u00a0father\u00adin\u00adlaw\u00a0be\u00a0furnished\u00a0to\u00a0him,\u00a0then\u00a0an\u00a0equally\u00a0
\n   challenging \u00a0 rebuttal \u00a0 could \u00a0 be \u00a0 that \u00a0 the \u00a0 Income \u00a0 Tax \u00a0 Act,\u00a0<\/p>\n
  which \u00a0 defines \u00a0 the \u00a0 procedure \u00a0 of \u00a0 disclosure \u00a0 of \u00a0 such \u00a0 IT\u00a0<\/p>\n
  Returns\u00a0to\u00a0him,\u00a0is\u00a0a\u00a0public\u00a0policy\u00a0which\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0enacted\u00a0<\/p>\n
  by \u00a0 the \u00a0 State \u00a0 keeping \u00a0 in \u00a0 mind \u00a0 the \u00a0 larger \u00a0 good \u00a0 of \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n
  society. \u00a0 It \u00a0 is \u00a0 not \u00a0 the \u00a0 case \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 Respondents \u00a0 that\u00a0<\/p>\n
  objection\u00a0to\u00a0disclosure\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0documents\u00a0is\u00a0taken\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
  ground\u00a0that\u00a0it\u00a0belongs\u00a0to\u00a0a\u00a0class\u00a0of\u00a0documents\u00a0which\u00a0are\u00a0<\/p>\n
  protected \u00a0 irrespective \u00a0 of \u00a0 their \u00a0 contents, \u00a0 because \u00a0 there\u00a0<\/p>\n
  is\u00a0no\u00a0absolute\u00a0immunity\u00a0for\u00a0documents\u00a0belonging\u00a0to\u00a0such\u00a0<\/p>\n
  class.\n<\/p>\n
15.     In \u00a0 my \u00a0 view, \u00a0 having \u00a0 assessed \u00a0 the \u00a0 factual \u00a0 situation\u00a0<\/p>\n
  and\u00a0the\u00a0legal\u00a0reasoning\u00a0at\u00a0hand,\u00a0the\u00a0correct\u00a0position\u00a0of\u00a0<\/p>\n
  law\u00a0is\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0right\u00a0forum\u00a0for\u00a0seeking\u00a0the\u00a0IT\u00a0Returns\u00a0of\u00a0<\/p>\n
  an \u00a0 assessee \u00a0 by \u00a0 a \u00a0 third \u00a0 person \u00a0 is \u00a0 either \u00a0 the \u00a0 Chief\u00a0<\/p>\n
  Commissioner,\u00a0Income\u00a0Tax\u00a0or\u00a0the\u00a0Concerned\u00a0Court,\u00a0if\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
  matter\u00a0 is \u00a0sub\u00adjudice. \u00a0 My \u00a0 view \u00a0 is \u00a0 furthered\u00a0 by \u00a0 the \u00a0 fact\u00a0<\/p>\n
  that\u00a0the\u00a0position\u00a0after\u00a0the\u00a0repealing\u00a0of\u00a0Section\u00a0137\u00a0of\u00a0<\/p>\n
  the\u00a0Income\u00a0Tax\u00a0Act,\u00a01961\u00a0by\u00a0Finance\u00a0Act,\u00a01964\u00a0is\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
  Court \u00a0 in \u00a0 a \u00a0 sub\u00adjudice \u00a0 matter \u00a0 can \u00a0 direct \u00a0 the \u00a0 IT\u00a0<\/p>\n
  Authorities\u00a0 to\u00a0 furnish\u00a0 the\u00a0 information\u00a0 pertaining\u00a0 to\u00a0 IT\u00a0<\/p>\n
  Returns\u00a0of\u00a0an\u00a0assessee\u00a0for\u00a0inspection\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Court.\u00a0Thus,\u00a0<\/p>\n
  disclosure\u00a0 will \u00a0 be \u00a0 warranted\u00a0 if \u00a0 such \u00a0 line\u00a0 of \u00a0 action \u00a0 is\u00a0<\/p>\n
  followed.\u00a0 There \u00a0 is \u00a0 no \u00a0 absolute\u00a0 ban \u00a0 on \u00a0 disclosure \u00a0 of \u00a0 IT\u00a0<\/p>\n
  returns.\n<\/p>\n
16.     \u00a0 Since, \u00a0 the \u00a0 present \u00a0 appeal \u00a0 raises \u00a0 important\u00a0<\/p>\n
  questions\u00a0of\u00a0law;\u00a0it\u00a0is\u00a0our\u00a0duty\u00a0to\u00a0apply\u00a0the\u00a0law\u00a0as\u00a0it\u00a0<\/p>\n
  stands\u00a0today.\u00a0In\u00a0SP\u00a0Gupta\u00a0vs.\u00a0UOI\u00a0([1982]\u00a02\u00a0SCR\u00a0365),\u00a0a\u00a0
\n   seven\u00a0judges\u00a0bench\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Apex\u00a0Court\u00a0held\u00a0that\u00a0“the\u00a0Court\u00a0<\/p>\n
  would\u00a0allow\u00a0the\u00a0objection\u00a0to\u00a0disclosure\u00a0if\u00a0its\u00a0finds\u00a0that \u00a0<\/p>\n
  the \u00a0 document \u00a0 relates \u00a0 to \u00a0 affairs \u00a0 of \u00a0 State \u00a0 and \u00a0 its\u00a0<\/p>\n
  disclosure\u00a0would\u00a0be\u00a0injurious\u00a0to\u00a0public\u00a0interest,\u00a0but\u00a0on\u00a0<\/p>\n
  the \u00a0 other \u00a0 hand, \u00a0 if \u00a0 it \u00a0 reaches \u00a0 the \u00a0 conclusion \u00a0 that \u00a0 the \u00a0<\/p>\n
  document\u00a0does\u00a0not\u00a0relate\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0affairs\u00a0of\u00a0State\u00a0or\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
  public \u00a0 interest \u00a0 does \u00a0 not \u00a0 compel \u00a0 its \u00a0 non\u00addisclosure \u00a0 or\u00a0<\/p>\n
  that\u00a0the\u00a0public\u00a0interest\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0administration\u00a0of\u00a0justice\u00a0<\/p>\n
  in \u00a0 a \u00a0 particular \u00a0 case \u00a0 overrides \u00a0 all \u00a0 other \u00a0 aspects \u00a0 of\u00a0<\/p>\n
  public\u00a0interest,\u00a0it\u00a0will\u00a0overrule\u00a0the\u00a0objection\u00a0and\u00a0order\u00a0<\/p>\n
  the \u00a0 disclosure \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 documents.” \u00a0 It \u00a0 was \u00a0 further \u00a0 held\u00a0<\/p>\n
  that\u00a0“in\u00a0balancing\u00a0the\u00a0competing\u00a0interest,\u00a0it\u00a0is\u00a0the\u00a0duty\u00a0<\/p>\n
  of \u00a0 the \u00a0 Court \u00a0 to \u00a0 see \u00a0 that \u00a0 there \u00a0 is \u00a0 the \u00a0 public \u00a0 interest\u00a0<\/p>\n
  that \u00a0 harm \u00a0 shall \u00a0 not \u00a0 be \u00a0 done \u00a0 to \u00a0 the \u00a0 nation \u00a0 or \u00a0 public \u00a0<\/p>\n
  service \u00a0 by \u00a0 disclosure \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 document \u00a0 and \u00a0 there \u00a0 is \u00a0 a\u00a0<\/p>\n
  public\u00a0interest\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0administration\u00a0of\u00a0justice\u00a0shall\u00a0<\/p>\n
  not\u00a0be\u00a0frustrated\u00a0by\u00a0withholding\u00a0the\u00a0documents\u00a0which\u00a0must\u00a0<\/p>\n
  be\u00a0produced\u00a0if\u00a0justice\u00a0is\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0done.”\n<\/p>\n
17.     In\u00a0light\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0above\u00a0view\u00a0taken\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Apex\u00a0Court,\u00a0<\/p>\n
  I\u00a0am\u00a0inclined\u00a0to\u00a0make\u00a0an\u00a0\u00a0observation\u00a0in\u00a0this\u00a0case.\u00a0I\u00a0have\u00a0<\/p>\n
  already \u00a0 discussed \u00a0 the \u00a0 settled \u00a0 point \u00a0 of \u00a0 law \u00a0 regarding\u00a0<\/p>\n
  public \u00a0 interest \u00a0 but \u00a0 it \u00a0 is \u00a0 in \u00a0 the \u00a0 pursuance \u00a0 of \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n
  principle\u00a0of\u00a0that\u00a0public\u00a0interest\u00a0only\u00a0where\u00a0we\u00a0feel\u00a0that\u00a0<\/p>\n
  the \u00a0 information \u00a0 pertaining \u00a0 to \u00a0 net \u00a0 taxable \u00a0 income \u00a0 of \u00a0 an\u00a0<\/p>\n
  assessee \u00a0 for \u00a0 the \u00a0 period \u00a0 of \u00a0 year \u00a0 2000 \u00a0 till \u00a0 date \u00a0 be\u00a0<\/p>\n
  furnished\u00a0by\u00a0following\u00a0the\u00a0Section\u00a010\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0Act\u00a0to\u00a0<\/p>\n
  his\u00a0Income\u00a0Tax\u00a0Returns.\u00a0We\u00a0shall\u00a0distinguish\u00a0the\u00a0present\u00a0
\n     case\u00a0from\u00a0the\u00a0decision\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0CIC\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0case\u00a0of \u00a0Milap\u00a0<\/p>\n
    Choraria \u00a0vs.\u00a0 Central \u00a0Board \u00a0of\u00a0Direct \u00a0 Taxes\u00a0 (Appeal \u00a0No.\u00a0<\/p>\n
    CIC\/AT\/A\/2008\/00628)\u00a0 as\u00a0decided\u00a0on\u00a015.06.2009\u00a0and\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
    case \u00a0 of \u00a0P.R. \u00a0 Gokul \u00a0 vs. \u00a0 Commissioner, \u00a0 Income \u00a0 Tax,\u00a0<\/p>\n
    Kottayaam \u00a0 (CIC\/AT\/A\/2007\/00405)\u00a0 decided \u00a0 on \u00a0 15.06.2007.\u00a0<\/p>\n
    The \u00a0Milap \u00a0 Choraria \u00a0 Case\u00a0 (supra) \u00a0 did \u00a0 not \u00a0 deal \u00a0 with \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n
    issue\u00a0of\u00a0information\u00a0pertaining\u00a0to\u00a0net\u00a0taxable\u00a0income\u00a0per\u00a0<\/p>\n
    se\u00a0while\u00a0the \u00a0Gokul\u00a0Case\u00a0 (supra)\u00a0was\u00a0not\u00a0centered\u00a0around\u00a0<\/p>\n
    the \u00a0 issue \u00a0 of \u00a0 larger\u00a0 public \u00a0 interest \u00a0 for \u00a0 the \u00a0 purpose \u00a0 of\u00a0<\/p>\n
    disclosure \u00a0 of \u00a0 net \u00a0 taxable \u00a0 income, \u00a0 unlike \u00a0 the \u00a0 present\u00a0<\/p>\n
    case. \u00a0 In \u00a0 S.P. \u00a0 Gupta \u00a0 case \u00a0 (Supra), \u00a0 Supreme \u00a0 Court \u00a0 stated\u00a0<\/p>\n
    “The\u00a0language\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0provision\u00a0is\u00a0not\u00a0a\u00a0static\u00a0vehicle\u00a0of\u00a0<\/p>\n
    ideas \u00a0 and \u00a0 as \u00a0 institutional \u00a0 development \u00a0 and \u00a0 democratic\u00a0<\/p>\n
    structures \u00a0 gain \u00a0 strength, \u00a0 a \u00a0 more \u00a0 liberal \u00a0 approach \u00a0 may\u00a0<\/p>\n
    only\u00a0be\u00a0in\u00a0larger\u00a0public\u00a0interest.”\n<\/p>\n
  18.       We \u00a0 direct \u00a0 the \u00a0 CPIO \u00a0 to \u00a0 furnish \u00a0 the \u00a0 information\u00a0<\/p>\n
    pertaining\u00a0 to \u00a0 the \u00a0 net \u00a0 taxable\u00a0 income \u00a0 of \u00a0 Shri \u00a0 Munna \u00a0 Lal\u00a0<\/p>\n
    Saini,\u00a0the\u00a0father\u00adin\u00adlaw\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant,\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0period\u00a0<\/p>\n
    of \u00a0 year \u00a0 2000 \u00a0 till \u00a0 15.09.2009 \u00a0 (i.e.\u00a0 the \u00a0 date \u00a0 of \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n
    Appellant’s\u00a0 RTI\u00a0 Application)\u00a0 to\u00a0 the\u00a0 Appellant\u00a0 within\u00a0 10\u00a0<\/p>\n
    days.\n<\/p>\n
  19.       The\u00a0Appeal\u00a0is\u00a0accordingly\u00a0disposed\u00a0of.<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u00a0
\n(Smt.\u00a0Deepak\u00a0Sandhu)
\nInformation\u00a0Commissioner\u00a0(DS)<\/p>\n
Authenticated\u00a0true\u00a0copy:\n<\/p>\n
 (T.\u00a0K.\u00a0Mohapatra)
\n\u00a0Dy.\u00a0Registrar
\n\u00a0<\/p>\n
Copy\u00a0to:\u00ad<\/p>\n
1.   \u00a0Sh.\u00a0Manoj\u00a0Kumar\u00a0Saini
\n     Plot\u00a0No.\u00a069,\u00a0Adarsh\u00a0Krishna
\n     Nagar,l\u00a0Kartarpura,\u00a0
\n     Jaipur\u00ad302006<\/p>\n
2.   The\u00a0Central\u00a0Public\u00a0Information\u00a0Officer
\n     The\u00a0Chief\u00a0Commissioner\u00a0of\u00a0Income\u00a0Tax
\n     O\/o\u00a0the\u00a0Commissioner\u00a0of\u00a0Income\u00a0Tax
\n     Ward\u00a03(1)\u00a0,\u00a0Jaipur<\/p>\n
3.   The\u00a0Appellate\u00a0Authority
\n     Addl.\u00a0Commissioner\u00a0of\u00a0Income\u00a0Tax,
\n     Range.3\u00a0Ward\u00a03(1),\u00a0Jaipur.\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Sh. Manoj Kumar Saini, Jaipur vs O\/O Addl.Commissioner Of It, … on 24 March, 2011 Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission Room\u00a0No.296,\u00a0II\u00a0Floor,\u00a0B\u00a0Wing,\u00a0August\u00a0Kranti\u00a0Bhawan,\u00a0Bhikaji\u00a0Cama\u00a0 Place,\u00a0New\u00a0Delhi\u00ad110066 Telefax:011\u00ad26180532\u00a0&\u00a0011\u00ad26107254\u00a0website\u00adcic.gov.in \u00a0Appeal\u00a0:\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/LS\/A\/2010\/001044\u00adDS\u00a0 \u00a0Appellant\u00a0\/Complainant : \u00a0\u00a0Sh.\u00a0Manoj\u00a0Kumar\u00a0Saini,\u00a0 Jaipur Public\u00a0Authority : \u00a0The\u00a0Chief\u00a0Commissioner,\u00a0 Income\u00a0Tax, \u00a0Jaipur\u00a0(Sh.Amrit\u00a0Meena,\u00a0CPIO\u00a0–\u00a0 through Videoconferencing) Date\u00a0of\u00a0Hearing\u00a0 : 03\u00a0Jan,\u00a02011 Date\u00a0of\u00a0Decision : 24\u00a0March,\u00a02011\u00a0 \u00a0 FACTS \u00a0OF\u00a0THE\u00a0CASE: 1. Vide\u00a0his\u00a0RTI\u00a0Application\u00a0dated\u00a015.09.2009,\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0 sought \u00a0 information \u00a0 pertaining \u00a0 to \u00a0 income \u00a0 […]<\/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-190705","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nSh. Manoj Kumar Saini, Jaipur vs O\/O Addl.Commissioner Of It, ... on 24 March, 2011 - 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\/sh-manoj-kumar-saini-jaipur-vs-oo-addl-commissioner-of-it-on-24-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sh. Manoj Kumar Saini, Jaipur vs O\/O Addl.Commissioner Of It, ... on 24 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-manoj-kumar-saini-jaipur-vs-oo-addl-commissioner-of-it-on-24-march-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-15T03:16:25+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-manoj-kumar-saini-jaipur-vs-oo-addl-commissioner-of-it-on-24-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-manoj-kumar-saini-jaipur-vs-oo-addl-commissioner-of-it-on-24-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sh. Manoj Kumar Saini, Jaipur vs O\\\/O Addl.Commissioner Of It, … on 24 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-15T03:16:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-manoj-kumar-saini-jaipur-vs-oo-addl-commissioner-of-it-on-24-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2653,\"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\\\/sh-manoj-kumar-saini-jaipur-vs-oo-addl-commissioner-of-it-on-24-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-manoj-kumar-saini-jaipur-vs-oo-addl-commissioner-of-it-on-24-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-manoj-kumar-saini-jaipur-vs-oo-addl-commissioner-of-it-on-24-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Sh. Manoj Kumar Saini, Jaipur vs O\\\/O Addl.Commissioner Of It, ... on 24 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-15T03:16:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-manoj-kumar-saini-jaipur-vs-oo-addl-commissioner-of-it-on-24-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-manoj-kumar-saini-jaipur-vs-oo-addl-commissioner-of-it-on-24-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-manoj-kumar-saini-jaipur-vs-oo-addl-commissioner-of-it-on-24-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sh. Manoj Kumar Saini, Jaipur vs O\\\/O Addl.Commissioner Of It, … on 24 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Sh. Manoj Kumar Saini, Jaipur vs O\/O Addl.Commissioner Of It, ... on 24 March, 2011 - 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\/sh-manoj-kumar-saini-jaipur-vs-oo-addl-commissioner-of-it-on-24-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sh. Manoj Kumar Saini, Jaipur vs O\/O Addl.Commissioner Of It, ... on 24 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-manoj-kumar-saini-jaipur-vs-oo-addl-commissioner-of-it-on-24-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-15T03:16:25+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-manoj-kumar-saini-jaipur-vs-oo-addl-commissioner-of-it-on-24-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-manoj-kumar-saini-jaipur-vs-oo-addl-commissioner-of-it-on-24-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sh. Manoj Kumar Saini, Jaipur vs O\/O Addl.Commissioner Of It, … on 24 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-15T03:16:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-manoj-kumar-saini-jaipur-vs-oo-addl-commissioner-of-it-on-24-march-2011"},"wordCount":2653,"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\/sh-manoj-kumar-saini-jaipur-vs-oo-addl-commissioner-of-it-on-24-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-manoj-kumar-saini-jaipur-vs-oo-addl-commissioner-of-it-on-24-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-manoj-kumar-saini-jaipur-vs-oo-addl-commissioner-of-it-on-24-march-2011","name":"Sh. Manoj Kumar Saini, Jaipur vs O\/O Addl.Commissioner Of It, ... on 24 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-15T03:16:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-manoj-kumar-saini-jaipur-vs-oo-addl-commissioner-of-it-on-24-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-manoj-kumar-saini-jaipur-vs-oo-addl-commissioner-of-it-on-24-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-manoj-kumar-saini-jaipur-vs-oo-addl-commissioner-of-it-on-24-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sh. Manoj Kumar Saini, Jaipur vs O\/O Addl.Commissioner Of It, … on 24 March, 2011"}]},{"@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\/190705","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=190705"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190705\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=190705"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=190705"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=190705"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}