{"id":218015,"date":"2010-06-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-itat-on-22-june-2010"},"modified":"2017-09-23T16:42:57","modified_gmt":"2017-09-23T11:12:57","slug":"mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-itat-on-22-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-itat-on-22-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Itat on 22 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Itat on 22 June, 2010<\/div>\n
                            CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                   Appeal No. CIC\/LS\/A\/2010\/000378 & 379 both dated 12.4.2010\n                          Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\n\n        Appellant       -       Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta\n        Respondent          -   Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)\n                                Income Tax Department\n\n                                     Date of hearing: 4.6.2010\n                                  Decision announced: 22.6.2010\n\n\n        Facts<\/pre>\n
:\n<\/p>\n
                 These are two appeals moved by Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta of Shalimar
\n        Bagh, New Delhi.<\/p>\n
1)               File No. CIC\/LS\/A\/2010\/000378
\n                 In this application Shri Gupta has sought the following information from
\n        CPIO, ITAT on 9.12.09:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               “1. Inspection of all the records related to Appeal DC 11(1) vs.
\n                    Escorts Ltd. A.Y. 2001-02, Ref: Appeal ITA No. 1562\/Del\/05
\n                    (other than Escorts Ld. A. Y. 2001-02 appeal ITA No.
\n                    567\/Del\/05-Bench G).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               2. Inspection of all the records related to ITA No. 3794\/Del\/2008.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    Assessment Year 2005-06. – M\/s Escorts Heart Institute &
\n                    Research Centre Ltd. vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax
\n                    Central Circle-3. ITA No.<\/a> 37\/Del\/2009 – A.Y 2005-06 – Dy. CIT
\n                    Central Circle-3, vs. M\/s Escorts Hearts Institute & Research
\n                    Centre Ltd. decided on dated: October 9, 2009.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               3. Kindly provide the form, procedure, rules through which third
\n                    parties are allowed to become intervener. As allowed in ITA
\n                    No. 3370\/Del\/08 M\/s Concept Creations, Pan\/GIR No. AAAFC
\n                    6948 H vs. Addl. CIT Range, Panipat – A.Y. 2005-06. This is
\n                    Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005 information.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4.            Kindly provide the procedure (and to whom to deposit and form of
\n        request letter and deposit challan etc.) for the Inspection and copying fee (for
\n        inspection and copies as per ITAT Rules).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        5.         Inspection of all records related to Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005
\n        compliance. Kindly provide also provide the procedure and to whom
\n        vigilance complaints too be made for ITAT.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        6.         Kindly provide copy of documents including note sheet \/ orders
\n        pointed out at the time of inspection for above requests.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                  1<\/span><\/p>\n
            To this Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta received a response dated 1.2.10 from
\n     CPIO Shri R.P. Tolani, Judicial Member, ITAT informing him as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            “At the time of hearing you also requested for inspection of office
\n            manual which was provided immediately and same has been
\n            acknowledged by you.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.            Your attention is invited to Para 3 & 4 of letter dated
\n     8.1.2010 in which you are requested to establish larger public interest
\n     which will be served by your application vis-\u00e0-vis 3 rd party in terms of
\n     provisions of RTI Act, 2005.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.            During the course of hearing you did not raise any
\n     contention in respect of larger public interest as held by Hon’ble Central
\n     Information Commission in the case of P. Rajan vs. Office of the CIT,
\n     Kottayam, Kerala<\/a> which is mentioned in our letter dated 8.1.2010.
\n     Therefore it is held that you have failed to establish larger public interest
\n     as contemplated in the said letter regarding 3rd party. Replies to rest of
\n     your queries have been given to you vide letter dated 8.1.2010. As
\n     requested at the time of hearing the inspection of office manual has also
\n     been provided to you. Therefore, your application stands disposed of
\n     accordingly.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Aggrieved, Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta moved an appeal registered as
\n     Appeal    No.     RTI\/Appeal\/02A\/2010     in   which   Appellate   Authority    Shri
\n     Veerabhadrappa, Vice President issued orders on 16.3.10 which is discussed
\n     together with the orders on the following application since both were covered by
\n     the same order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2)         File no. CIC\/LS\/A\/2010\/000379
\n           By this application Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta produced a proforma
\n     seeking information on various RTI applications regarding ITAT judicial case
\n     inspection \/ copies allowed by ITAT from 1.1.06 to 31.11.09 and on this basis
\n     sought the following information:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           “3.   Inspection of all the case records of the cases mentioned above.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           4.    Kindly provide copy RECORDS pointed out at the time of
\n           inspection.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           To this, Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta received a response on 1.2.10 from
\n     CPIO Shri R. P. Tolani informing him as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
       “During the course of hearing you did not raise any contention in
\n      respect of larger public interest as held by Hon’ble Central
\n      Information Commission in the case of P. Rajan vs. Office of the
\n      CIT, Kottayam, Kerala<\/a> which is mentioned in our letter dated
\n      8.1.2010. Therefore, it is held that you have failed to establish
\n      larger public interest as contemplated in the said letter. Replies to
\n      your queries have been given to you vide letter dated 23.12.2009.
\n      As you have requested at the time of hearing, the inspection of
\n      office manual has been provided to you immediately and same has
\n      been acknowledged by you. Therefore, your application stands
\n      disposed of accordingly.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Upon this, Shri R. K. Gupta moved his appeal before Shri G. E.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Veerabhadrappa, Vice President, ITAT, registered as appeal No. RTI\/02\/2010. In
\nhis detailed order of 16.3.2010, which was applied in both cases, Shri
\nVeerabhadrappa has come to the following conclusion:\n<\/p>\n
      “6.     I have heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, who was present. I
\n              have also heard Shri R. P. Tolani, CPIO and Shri K. K.
\n              Singh, CAPIO who were also present. Shri R. K. Gupta filed
\n              a letter, confining his arguments, seeking inspection of the
\n              judicial records. But as already stated, bound by the
\n              decision of the CIC in applicant’s own case and for the
\n              reasons already discussed in my order dated 22.1.2010 in
\n              Appeal No. RTI\/Appeal\/07\/2009, pertaining to his case, I am
\n              unable to accede to his request. At the cost of repetition, it
\n              may again be stated that the request for inspection of judicial
\n              record, not pertaining to his case cannot be permitted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.1           It must be appreciated that the appellant cannot go on
\nmisusing the provisions of the RTI Act to create unnecessary proceedings
\nbefore the authorities who are expected to do the important government
\nwork. To my experience, what I found in the applications and appeals by
\nShri Rakesh Kumar Gupta is that he is missing the provisions of RTI Act to
\nharass the authorities under the said Act in the name of doing certain
\npublic good work, which is known only to his imaginations. Exactly, for
\nthis reasons the CPIO wanted to know the larger public interest in seeking
\nthe information again and again on this issue. In my view, the learned
\nCPIO has correctly appreciated the facts of the case in the light of the
\nconduct of Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, who pretends to be a whistle
\nblower, but a nuisance maker creating nuisance to the public authorities
\nunder the shelter of RTI Act. He may be using these provisions just as a
\nblack mailing or arms twisting tactics. After all, purpose of the RTI Act is
\nnoble and cannot be misused by persons of this nature, wasting public
\nmoney and the time of the authorities who are supposed to do other
\nimportant government works.\n<\/p>\n
                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
 6.2            I find from my records, that it is a glaring example of
\nbombarding RTI applications, as observed by the CIC in the case of S. P.
\nGoyal vs. Director of Income Tax (Inv.) Ludhiana<\/a> dt. 24.1.2008, CIC
\nDigest (Vol.II) 2014 (984). It is also a case of seeking more or less similar
\ninformation repeatedly. It is in this context that we must appreciate the
\norder of the CPIO. It is also a case of harassment of public authority, as
\nobserved by the CIC in the case of Abdul Rafique vs. North Western
\nRailways, Ajmer<\/a> dt. 25.1.2008, CCC Digest (Vol.II) 2019 (989); and K.
\nGopinath vs. AICTE, UGC & JNTU<\/a> dt. 15.12.2006, CIC Digest (Vol.I)
\n1086. Further, it is not open for the applicant to prescribe a table under
\nwhich the information requires to be given to him, when the department
\nhas not maintained the information in that manner. After all under the RTI
\nAct, he is entitled to the information in the manner it exists.
\n6.3            In my opinion, the CPIO, after appreciating the conduct of
\nShri Rakesh Kumar Gupta in putting multiple applications on the same
\nissue, rightly put across to him to establish the larger public interest, which
\nhe failed to establish before him, nor did he take any interest to establish
\nsuch noble purpose before me. As far as judicial record is concerned, it
\nwas made clear to him that he is not entitled being a stranger and simply a
\nnuisance maker. As regards the RTI records of the CPIO, Delhi, most of
\nthe applications are by him only. At first, he wanted copies of all the RTI
\napplications. When it was pointed out that majority of applications are
\nonly by him, he withdrew in relation to his applications but insisted for
\ninspection of applications of other applicants. I am of the view that
\nproviding copies of those third parties will only result in interference of
\nprivacy of the third party and may cause prejudice to their interests, who
\nsought information from the Tribunal. I, therefore, justify the order of the
\nCPIO, who refrained providing information of third parties to stranger,
\nwhich may give rise to multiple proceedings against the Tribunal by
\ndifferent information seekers. In other words, the Tribunal will be entering
\ninto unnecessary litigation over the issues. Exactly for this reason, in my
\nview the CPIO rightly demanded from him the larger public interest, in
\nseeking the information. I do not find any infirmity in the order of CPIO.
\nAccordingly, the appeal filed by the applicant is dismissed.”\n<\/p>\n
       Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta’s prayer for relief in both the second appeals
\nbrought before us is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
       ‘1.    Issue direction to give the information.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       2.     Penalize under section 20 for delay in providing information
\n              and rejecting inspection on false pretext.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       3.     Direct Public Authority to maintained records as directed
\n              under section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       4.     Any additional payer as Respected Commissioner found
\n              deem fit like compensation etc.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
 The appeal was heard on 4.6.2010. The following are present:\n<\/p>\n
       Appellant
\n             Shri Rakesh K. Gupta
\n       Respondents
\n             Shri Sunil Chopra, Chief Commissioner of IT Central
\n             Shri Arun S. Bhatnagar, CIT (C-II), New Delhi.
\n             Shri P. Ray Chaudhuri, Advocate
\n             Shri V. M. Mahidhar, ACIT, CC-3, New Delhi.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Shri I. P. Bansal, Judicial Member, ITAT
\n             Shri V S. Dhanda, ITO HQ (Exemptions)<\/p>\n
       Shri P Ray Chaudhuri Learned Counsel submitted that as decided by this
\nCommission in P. Rajan vs. Office of CIT Kottayam (Kerala),<\/a> judicial information
\ncannot be provided unless it serves some larger public interest which Shri R. K.
\nGupta has been unable to establish. Accordingly, ITAT, which keeps only
\npersonal records, has not provided this information to anybody. Upon this, Shri
\nRakesh Kumar Gupta responded by submitting that he has accepted the
\nresponse of CPIO to his first questions in application on File No.
\nCIC\/LA\/A\/2010\/000379, in which he has sought the list of applications allowed
\nby ITAT. However, in this case he has asked for information under Rule 33 of
\nITAT rules, which is information on public hearing.       This is not personal
\ninformation but commercial information, which ITAT is bound to provide.
\nRegarding the arguments of not disclosing judicial records, appellant Shri R. K.
\nGupta invited our attention to his arguments in grounds for appeal, which are as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
       “All the records are for old period requested by the informer, for
\n       which Sec. 8(1)(d) cannot be applied, the correct decision Rakesh
\n       Kumar Gupta vs. CIT Decision No CIC\/LS\/A\/2009\/000647\/SG\/5887<\/a>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       -Appeal No. CIC\/LS\/A\/2009\/000647 dated 14.12.2009 is applicable
\n       in above case. The cases under reference are not in camera
\n       proceeding.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       We also received written submissions from both parties. In his submission,
\nCPIO Shri I. P. Bansal, Judicial Member-cum-CPIO, Income Tax Appellate
\nTribunal has submitted as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
       “10. It can be seen that applicant has sought inspection of all the
\n           records relating to the appeals filed in the cases of above
\n           concerns, which means that the applicant, if permitted to
\n           have inspection, will have access to all information filed by
\n           these partied which is highly personal in nature. The
\n           information relating to them cannot be disclosed to the
\n           applicant merely because the applicant merely because the
\n           applicant consider such information to be public and not
\n           personal information. That may be the belief of applicant
\n           that it is public information but the third parties have
\n           submitted such information to ITAT might be on the
\n           understanding that the said information shall never be
\n           disclosed to unrelated party as nobody will want to make
\n           personal information as public.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      11.  If providing of such information to the public authority is done
\n           with an understanding that they are providing their personal
\n           information’s to public authority and such information is
\n           being held by the public authority knowing full well that is a
\n           personal information of the third parties which was not to be
\n           ordinarily disclosed, then such information would be
\n           construed as personal, unless there is evidence to the
\n           contrary. The integrity of such information as personal
\n           information is required to be respected by the Public
\n           authority who held such information in trust. The applicant in
\n           the present case was time and again requested to establish
\n           public interest to seek such information belonging to other
\n           parties which could not be established, hence CPIO was
\n           right in rejecting such request and first appellate authority
\n           also is well within its right to reject such appeal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      12.  The contentions raised in the above part of this written
\n           submissions are well supported by the decision of Central
\n           Information Commission in the case of Ms. Raj Kumar W\/o
\n           Shri Hari Singh vide its order dated 25.3.2008 in F. No.
\n           CIC\/AT\/A\/2007\/01339.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      He has then quoted extensively from the decision of this Commission in
\nthis case and on this basis argued:\n<\/p>\n
      “13.   In the aforementioned case the applicant had required from
\n             the Income Tax Department to submit information that how
\n             many charitable trust had applied for registration for a
\n             particular period. She demanded the names and addresses
\n             of all those charitable trust who had applied for registration
\n             within that period. She also sought an information that how
\n             many of them were denied registration and was asked to
\n             furnish the names and addresses of those applicants. She
\n             also demanded the copies of orders of all those charitable<\/p>\n
                                       6<\/span>
\n              trust who were denied registration during that period an she
\n             also demanded the information that what was the mode of
\n             sending the orders pertaining to denial of information an
\n             such information was held to be information in the nature of
\n             personal information and CPIO was held right to withheld
\n             such information u\/s 80 (i) (j). The applicant was held to be
\n             entitled to get the numbers of the Institution who had applied
\n             for registration, the number of trust registration and the
\n             numbers of the applicant whose request for registration was
\n             rejected. In that case also the applicant was denied to have
\n             even the name and address of the trust applicants and the
\n             information regarding name and addresses was considered
\n             to be an information in the nature of personal information
\n             protected by the provisions of 80 (i) (j). For the sake of
\n             convenience full copy of the said order is enclosed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      14.    Reference can also be made to the decision of CIP in the
\n             case of G. R. Rawal Meghaninagar vs. D. G. Of Income Tax
\n             (Investigation Ahmedabad) (2008) 2 ID 82 CIC (Del.),
\n             wherein the information seeker had sought the following
\n             information: –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             ‘Tax payable as per decision of Settlement Commission in
\n             the case of Wiprolene Plastics and tax paid by said
\n             company.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      He has, therefore, pleaded exemption from disclosure u\/s 8(1)(j) which in
\nhis view is also third party information. Finally Shri Bansal has rested his case
\non exemption u\/s 8(1)(j).\n<\/p>\n
      In his written petition Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta has submitted as follows:
\n      “3.    The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) is a judicial
\n             authority adjudicating the appeals either filed by the revenue
\n             (Income Tax Department) or by the assesses.               It is
\n             constituted under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (I.T. Act). It is a
\n             highest fact finding authority and appeal against its order can
\n             only be filed before High Court if any substantial question of
\n             law arises. During the process of filing of the appeals an
\n             during the course of hearing of these appeals to establish
\n             facts and to defend or lodge their cases certain details\/
\n             particulars are filed by the respective parties which
\n             comprises the details of personal nature. Thus, details
\n             comprises of various aspects relating to the commercial and
\n             domestic details. For example the name of the parties with
\n             whom such person has commercial dealing the copies of<\/p>\n
                                        7<\/span>
\n              contract entered into by him with various entities in the
\n             course of his business expenses incurred under various
\n             heads, household expenses the details of family members
\n             and amount drawn by them in the nature of household
\n             expenses the investment made by them in various assets
\n             etc.”\n<\/p>\n
      With this he has attached a copy of the decision in ITA No. 762\/Del.\/2009
\n(Asst. Year 2001-02) of M\/s Big Apple Clothing vs. CIT New Delhi, together
\nwith complaint made by him against Shri G. E. Veerabhadrappa, Vice President,
\nITAT to Minister of Law, Justice & Company Affairs and Central Vigilance
\nCommission. Subsequently, we have received an e-mail from appellant Shri
\nGupta summarizing his arguments as follows:\n<\/p>\n
       Objection is about judicial records decided the ITAT by invoking the
\n       Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 only.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       My reply on the above objection is,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1.     Public interest to curb corruption in administration of Justice. To
\ncurb corruption in administration of Justice (public interest) all the
\nproceeding in the justice administration is Public. ITAT proceeding is
\npublic as per ITAT Rule 33.\n<\/p>\n
2.     It is very strange, what is public information as per Rule 33 of
\nITAT is stated to be covered under Section 8(1)(j), very absurd
\naugment. (Public commercial information used to decide public action
\nis stated to be confidential information and covered u\/s Section 8(1)(j))\n<\/p>\n
3.     Decision cited by the L: D CPIO in his supports are not
\napplicable in the present case due to following reasons.\n<\/p>\n
              1. The information is public as per law of Country,
\n                 whereas in the cases cited by the opposite party,
\n                 information is not public as per law.\n<\/p>\n
              2. Similar organisation CESTATE (like the ITAT) had by
\n                 order declared all its record as public information and
\n                 giving the same in lesser period than the period given
\n                 under the RTI act, 2005. (In detail it is given page 13
\n                 to 14 of appeal)\n<\/p>\n
              3. The decision is subordinate to Delhi High Court\/
\n                 Supreme Court of India, therefore Principal \/ rules
\n                 made by them (Superior Forums) has to be followed.
\n       Basic Rules framed for interpreting the RTI Exemption by the
\n      Delhi High Court in the Bhagat Singh case
\n      (WP(C) No.3114\/2007 Date of decision: December 03, 2007
\n      BHAGAT SINGH (Petitioner) Versus CHIEF INFORMATION<\/p>\n
                                        8<\/span>
\n       COMMISSIONER and ORS. Central Information Commission File
\n      Ref: Appeal No.35\/IC (A)\/06- F. No.CIC\/MA\/A\/2006\/00108 Dated,
\n      the 8th May, 2006) to while applying the exemption clause.
\n      Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, J.\n<\/p>\n
      Rule 1: As is reflected in its preambular paragraphs, the enactment
\n             seeks to promote transparency, arrest corruption and to hold
\n             the Government and its instrumentalities accountable to the
\n             governed. This spirit of the Act must be borne in mind while
\n             construing the provisions contained therein.\n<\/p>\n
      ( From Para 12 Page 6 of the order)
\n      Rule 2: Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the
\n             rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section
\n             8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore
\n             is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in
\n             manner as to shadow the very right itself.\n<\/p>\n
      ( From Para 13 Page 6 of the order)
\n      Rule 3 : A rights based enactment is akin to a welfare measure,
\n             like the Act, should receive a liberal interpretation. The
\n             contextual background and history of the Act is such that the
\n             exemptions, outlined in Section 8, relieving the
\n             authorities from the obligation to provide information,
\n             constitute restrictions on the exercise of the rights provided
\n             by it. Therefore, such exemption provisions have to be
\n             construed in their terms; . ………\n<\/p>\n
      Adopting a different approach would result in narrowing the rights
\n      and approving a judicially mandated class of restriction on the
\n      rights under the Act, which is unwarranted.\n<\/p>\n
       ( From Para 14 Page 6 of the order)<\/p>\n
                              DECISION NOTICE
\n      We cannot accept the argument that because the information held by
\nITAT is in the form of only judicial record, such record is outside the purview of
\nthe RTI Act. The Supreme Court of India and High Courts, all have rules for
\ndisclosure of information both administrative and judicial. The only requirement
\nis that applicant must adhere to the particular rules in making an application
\nunder the RTI Act. This Commission has also examined the rules made by the
\ncompetent authorities in these cases in light of the RTI Act and where required
\nhas, under the authority vested in the Commission under sub sec. 5 of Sec. 25
\nand directions permissible u\/s 19(8)(a) advised \/ directed the concerned Courts
\nto rectify such rules or has, as was usual in most cases, upheld these, as being<\/p>\n
                                        9<\/span>
\n consistent with the RTI Act. In the case of ITAT, which is a part of Government,
\nthe rules regarding the means of disclosure of information with regard to carrying
\nout the provisions of the Act and fees \/ costs to be charged are covered by rules
\n27(1) & 28 in both of which appropriate Government and the competent authority
\nare defined in sec. 2(a) & 2(b).      Clearly ITAT will fall under the appropriate
\nGovernment described in Sec. 2(a).\n<\/p>\n
       This brings us to the question of whether the information sought by
\nappellant Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta is to be treated as information, the
\ndisclosure of which would amount to invasion of privacy. Sec 8(1) (j) is the clause
\nrelied upon by respondents in refusing information. In the case of Ms. Raj Kumari
\nvs.   Chief   Commissioner       of   Income      Tax,    Haryana,     in   File   No.
\nCIC\/AT\/A\/2007\/01339 dated 25th March, 2008, relied upon by respondents, we
\nhave decided as follows:\n<\/p>\n
       ” In overall consideration of the submissions made during hearing
\n       and after considering the records and documents placed before
\n       me, it is directed that respondents will disclose the statistical details
\n       about the information requested by the appellant \u2015 the numbers of
\n       those who applied for registration as Trusts, the numbers of the
\n       Trusts registered and the numbers of the applicants whose request
\n       for registration was rejected\u2015 shall be provided to the appellant
\n       within 2 weeks from the date of the receipt of this order. No
\n       information regarding the names and addresses of the applicant-
\n       Trusts shall be disclosed to the appellant.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       In both the cases at present before us in appeal, what appellant Shri
\nRakesh Kumar Gupta has sought is inspection of case files of third parties. The
\ndecision of this Commission upon which appellant Shri Gupta has relied
\nCIC\/LS\/A\/2009\/000647 dated 14.12.2009, has been stayed. Earlier decisions of
\nthis Commission like the one quoted above will clearly apply in this case. Equally
\nclearly, Sec 8 (1) (j) or indeed the state cannot apply to the following information
\nsought in File No CIC\/LS\/A\/2010\/000378:\n<\/p>\n
       7. Kindly provide the form, procedure, rules through which third
\n          parties are allowed to become intervener. This is Section 4 of
\n          RTI Act, 2005 information.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                          10<\/span><\/p>\n
 8.              Kindly provide the procedure (and to whom to deposit and form of
\n     request letter and deposit challan etc.) for the Inspection and copying fee (for
\n     inspection and copies as per ITAT Rules).\n<\/p>\n
     9.         Inspection of all records related to Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005
\n     compliance. Kindly provide also provide the procedure and to whom
\n     vigilance complaints too be made for ITAT.\n<\/p>\n
     10.        Kindly provide copy of documents including note sheet \/ orders
\n     pointed out at the time of inspection for above requests<\/p>\n
           Therefore although both appeals are, therefore, dismissed in regard to
\n     inspection of files. However, with regard to the remaining information sought, the
\n     above information suo moto disclosure of which is mandated by Sec 4 (1) (b)(vii),\n<\/p>\n
     (xv) and (d) of the Act will be provided to appellant Shri RK Gupta within ten
\n     working   days   of   the   receipt   of   this   Decision   Notice.   Appeal   No   .
\n     CIC\/LS\/A\/2010\/000378 is allowed to this extent<\/p>\n
           Nevertheless, we must observe that the decision of the Appellate Authority
\n     Shri G.E. Veerabhadrappa, Vice President IT quoted by us extensively above,
\n     seems moved more by animosity in coming to his conclusions than in reliance
\n     upon the law. We have indeed held in our earlier decision and again by means
\n     of the present decision that disclosure of personal information will amount to
\n     invasion of privacy unless a public interest is disclosed. But as decided by us in
\n     at one of the cases, there is more than simply personal information that has been
\n     sought. In the present two cases, appellant Shri Rakesh Gupta represents a
\n     class of persons created by the ITAT itself to generate information regarding
\n     delinquent activities of tax payers. In doing this, it cannot treat such a resource
\n     as a mere pest but must accept responsibility for this requirement. It may be
\n     kept in mind that this resource is sustained only by financial returns promised by
\n     disclosure about delinquent tax payers to the Department. While encouraging
\n     such an activity, the Income Tax Department cannot then seek to keep itself
\n     aloof from the consequences. With these observations, the present appeals are
\n     disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
                                                11<\/span><\/p>\n
        Reserved in the hearing, this decision is announced on this twenty second
\nday of June, 2010 in open chambers. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
\nto the parties.\n<\/p>\n
(Wajahat Habibullah)
\nChief Information Commissioner
\n22.6.2010<\/p>\n
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
\napplication and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
\nof this Commission.\n<\/p>\n
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
\nJoint Registrar
\n22.6.2010<\/p>\n
                                       12<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Itat on 22 June, 2010 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC\/LS\/A\/2010\/000378 & 379 both dated 12.4.2010 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant – Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta Respondent – Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Income Tax Department Date of hearing: 4.6.2010 Decision announced: 22.6.2010 Facts […]<\/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-218015","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Itat on 22 June, 2010 - 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-itat-on-22-june-2010\" \/>\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 Itat on 22 June, 2010 - 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-itat-on-22-june-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-23T11:12:57+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=\"21 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-itat-on-22-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-itat-on-22-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Itat on 22 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-23T11:12:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-itat-on-22-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4128,\"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-itat-on-22-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-itat-on-22-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-itat-on-22-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Mr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Itat on 22 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-23T11:12:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-itat-on-22-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-itat-on-22-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-itat-on-22-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Itat on 22 June, 2010\"}]},{\"@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 Itat on 22 June, 2010 - 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-itat-on-22-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Itat on 22 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-itat-on-22-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-23T11:12:57+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-itat-on-22-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-itat-on-22-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Itat on 22 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-23T11:12:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-itat-on-22-june-2010"},"wordCount":4128,"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-itat-on-22-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-itat-on-22-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-itat-on-22-june-2010","name":"Mr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Itat on 22 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-23T11:12:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-itat-on-22-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-itat-on-22-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-gupta-vs-itat-on-22-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Itat on 22 June, 2010"}]},{"@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\/218015","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=218015"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218015\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218015"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218015"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218015"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}