Father in Law's Income Tax details can be given in RTI - CIC Judgement
Central Information Commission
Room No.296, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi 110066
Telefax:01126180532 & 01126107254 Website: www.cic.gov.in
Appeal : No. CIC/LS/A/2010/001044DS
Appellant /Complainant : Sh. Manoj Kumar Saini, Jaipur
Public Authority : The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Jaipur (Sh.Amrit
Meena, CPIO through Videoconferencing)
Date of Hearing : 03 Jan, 2011
Date of Decision : 24 March, 2011
FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. Vide his RTI Application dated 15.09.2009, the Applicant sought
information pertaining to income tax returns of his fatherinlaw for the
period 2000 to date along with the information pertaining to process for
initiating tax evasion petition.
2. The CPIO vide his order dated 06.10.2009 denied disclosure of
information citing the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005
(hereinafter "the Act"). Information was provided pertaining to the process
of submitting tax evasion petition.
3. The Applicant preferred appeal dated 13.10.2009 before the FAA who
adjudicated upon it vide his order of 06.11.2009 by upholding the order of
the CPIO and dismissing the appeal.
4. The Applicant has come before this Commission in second appeal. The
Appellant made an impassioned plea for disclosure of information sought by
him on the grounds that he was a young man who is involved in defending
himself in a criminal case against the State of Rajasthan pertaining to
dowry related issues. He emphasized that the litigation was not a private
matter against his wife / fatherinlaw and therefore, the denial of
information could not be justified on the grounds that there was no public
interest in the matter and that the issue was purely a personal one. The
Appellant stated that in a welfare state, such as ours, the life and
security of every individual was a matter which involved the state. Denial
of information to him would result in a prolonged litigation of 10 years
and more resulting in his losing the best years of his life and career.
5. Respondent stated that he had ascertained that Shri Munna Lal Saini
does not file any income tax returns in this income tax office Ward 3(1).
Appellant stated that with the issue of PAN card which is a unique number,
it will not be difficult to ascertain in which ward Shri Saini was filing
his returns.
DECISION NOTICE:
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the Appellant with
great thrust and also by the Respondents.
7. The conviction and thrust with which the Appellant had pursued his case
and made his submission explaining the reasons for which he needs the
information are plausible. But, however unfortunate as it may seem, the
noise of motivation behind seeking the information falls upon deaf ears as
far as the Act is concerned. Section 6(2) of the Act clearly states that
the Applicant shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the
information. Thus, the Act does not aim to judge the motivation or the
reason behind seeking certain information, as each applicant may have a
different line of reasoning, each one being equally passionate and
emotionally driven.
8. What, in fact, matters is whether certain information which has been
sought can actually be furnished under the Act. The information has been
classified as either public information or personal information under the
Act. There is no question of doubt whatsoever that every public information
need be furnished upon receiving a request to that effect. However, in case
of personal information, the Act stands on a different footing, and the
present appeal before us is the best example of that. The Applicant has to
satisfy the legislative intent enshrined in Sections 8(1)(j) of the Act
which mandates the requirement of "larger public interest" that can justify
the disclosure of such personal information.
9. Section 8(1)(j) of the Act is as follows:
"8. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no
obligation to give any citizen,
XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of
which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which
would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless
the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information
Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that
the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or
a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person."
10. Now I shall deal with each of the respective contentions raised by the
Appellant in the appeal before me.
11. The Appellant has contended that the information pertaining to the
Income Tax returns filed by his father inlaw is an information within the
ambit of Proviso to Section 8(1)(j), i.e. those IT returns cannot be denied
to the Parliament or a State Legislature. Here, we look towards the
enlargement of intent of this proviso by Hon'ble Sanjiv Khanna J. in his
decision dated 30.11.2009 in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.. 8396/2009,
16907/2006, 4788/2008, 9914/2009, 6085/2008, 7304/2007, 7930/2009 AND 3607
OF 2007, wherein he stated " The proviso in the present cases is a guiding
factor and not a substantive provision which overrides Section 8(1)(j) of
the RTI Act. It does not undo or rewrite Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act
and does not itself create any new right. The purpose is only to clarify
that while deciding the question of larger public interest i.e. the
question of balance between ` public interest in the form of right to
privacy and `public interest in access to information is to be balanced."
It is now apposite to peruse through Section 138 of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (43 of 1961), which is as follows:
"Section 138 – DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION RESPECTING ASSESSEES.
(1)
(a) The Board or any other income-tax authority specified by it by a
general or special order in this behalf may furnish or cause to be
furnished to -
(i) Any officer, authority or body performing any functions under any law
relating to the imposition of any tax, duty or cess, or to dealings in
foreign exchange as defined in section 2(d) of the Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act, 1947 (7 of 1947); or (ii) Such officer, authority or body
performing functions under any other law as the Central Government may, if
in its opinion it is necessary so to do in the public interest, specify by
notification in the Official Gazette in this behalf, any such information
received or obtained by any income-tax authority in the performance of his
functions under this Act as may, in the opinion of the Board or other
income-tax authority, be necessary for the purpose of enabling the officer,
authority or body to perform his or its functions under that law.
(b) Where a person makes an application to the Chief Commissioner or
Commissioner in the prescribed form for any information relating to any
assessee received or obtained by any income-tax authority in the
performance of his functions under this Act, the Chief Commissioner or
Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that it is in the public interest so
to do, furnish or cause to be furnished the information asked for and his
decision in this behalf shall be final and shall not be called in question
in any court of law.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or any other law
for the time being in force, the Central Government may, having regard to
the practices and usages customary or any other relevant factors, by order
notified in the Official Gazette, direct that no information or document
shall be furnished or produced by a public servant in respect of such
matters relating to such class of assesses or except to such authorities as
may be specified in the order."
12. The legislative mandate is absolutely clear on the front that the
Income Tax Returns of an assessee are held by the Chief Commissioner,
Income Tax only and such cannot be accessed by any other body or authority
except when the Chief Commissioner himself is of the opinion that such
returns be furnished to a third party in light of public interest. In R. K.
Jain Vs. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 120 it was held that factors to decide
the public interest immunity would include (a) where the contents of the
documents are relied upon, the interests affected by their disclosure; (b)
where the class of documents is invoked, whether the public interest
immunity for the class is said to protect; (c) the extent to which the
interests referred to have become attenuated by the passage of time or the
occurrence of intervening events since the matter contained in the
documents themselves came into existence; (d) the seriousness of the issue
in relation to which the production is sought; (e) the likelihood that
production of the documents will affect the outcome of the case; (f) the
likelihood of the injustice if the documents are not produced " It was
further stated "The courts would allow the objection if it finds that the
documents relates to the affairs of the state and its disclosure would be
injurious to the public interest, but on the other hand, if it reaches the
conclusion that the document does not relate to the affairs of state or
that the public interest does not compel its nondisclosure or that the
public interest in the administration of justice in the particular case
before it overrides all other aspects of public interest, it will overrule
the objection and order disclosure of the document". I am inclined to say
that the information sought is not granted immunity from disclosure as
class of information. Protection of disclosure has to be ensured by
balancing the two competing aspects of public interest i.e. when disclosure
would cause injury or unwarranted invasion of privacy and on the other hand
if nondisclosure would throttle the administration of justice.
13. It brings me to the second contention of the Appellant which revolves
around the concept of "larger public interest". According to the Appellant,
the "State" is pursuing a criminal case against him and that since "State"
has decided to prosecute him because of legal fiction created underSection
405 of IPC, automatically a "larger public interest" is involved in the
matter. Section 405 of the IPC states that "Whoever, being in any manner
entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly
misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly
uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law
prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any
legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the
discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do,
commits `criminal breach of trust'." Dowry Cases invariably have the
component of `Criminal Breach of Trust' relating to misappropriation of
property. In case, the State relies upon the fiction of misappropriation,
then the other party should have a right to know the details of property
reflected in IT Returns which is alleged to be misappropriated.
14. The mandate of the RTI Act to disclose personal information
underSection 8(1)(j) is even stricter since it appends the expression
"larger" to "public interest". Mere public interest will not suffice in the
disclosure of personal information such as the IT Returns of an assessee
unless the Applicant can prove that a "larger" public interest demands such
disclosure.The expression "larger" cannot be defined or carved into a
straight jacketed formula and neither can it be easily disposed of. If the
Applicant incessantly stresses on the argument that false dowry cases are a
matter of "larger public interest" and that the information relating to IT
returns of his father in law be furnished to him, then an equally
challenging rebuttal could be that the Income Tax Act, which defines the
procedure of disclosure of such IT Returns to him, is a public policy which
has been enacted by the State keeping in mind the larger good of the
society. It is not the case of the Respondents that objection to disclosure
of the documents is taken on the ground that it belongs to a class of
documents which are protected irrespective of their contents, because there
is no absolute immunity for documents belonging to such class.
15. In my view, having assessed the factual situation and the legal
reasoning at hand, the correct position of law is that the right forum for
seeking the IT Returns of an assessee by a third person is either the Chief
Commissioner, Income Tax or the Concerned Court, if the matter is
subjudice. My view is furthered by the fact that the position after the
repealing of Section 137 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Finance Act, 1964
is that the Court in a subjudice matter can direct the IT Authorities to
furnish the information pertaining to IT Returns of an assessee for
inspection by the Court. Thus, disclosure will be warranted if such line of
action is followed. There is no absolute ban on disclosure of IT returns.
16. Since, the present appeal raises important questions of law; it is our
duty to apply the law as it stands today. In SP Gupta vs. UOI ([1982] 2 SCR
365), a seven judges bench of the Apex Court held that "the Court would
allow the objection to disclosure if its finds that the document relates to
affairs of State and its disclosure would be injurious to public interest,
but on the other hand, if it reaches the conclusion that the document does
not relate to the affairs of State or the public interest does not compel
its nondisclosure or that the public interest in the administration of
justice in a particular case overrides all other aspects of public
interest, it will overrule the objection and order the disclosure of the
documents." It was further held that "in balancing the competing interest,
it is the duty of the Court to see that there is the public interest that
harm shall not be done to the nation or public service by disclosure of the
document and there is a public interest that the administration of justice
shall not be frustrated by withholding the documents which must be produced
if justice is to be done."
17. In light of the above view taken by the Apex Court, I am inclined to
make an observation in this case. I have already discussed the settled
point of law regarding public interest but it is in the pursuance of the
principle of that public interest only where we feel that the information
pertaining to net taxable income of an assessee for the period of year 2000
till date be furnished by following the Section 10 of the RTI Act to his
Income Tax Returns. We shall distinguish the present case from the decision
of the CIC in the case of Milap Choraria vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes
(Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/00628) as decided on 15.06.2009 and in the case
ofP.R. Gokul vs. Commissioner, Income Tax, Kottayaam (CIC/AT/A/2007/00405)
decided on 15.06.2007. The Milap Choraria Case (supra) did not deal with
the issue of information pertaining to net taxable income per se while the
Gokul Case (supra) was not centered around the issue of larger public
interest for the purpose of disclosure of net taxable income, unlike the
present case. In S.P. Gupta case (Supra), Supreme Court stated "The
language of the provision is not a static vehicle of ideas and as
institutional development and democratic structures gain strength, a more
liberal approach may only be in larger public interest."
18. We direct the CPIO to furnish the information pertaining to the net
taxable income of Shri Munna Lal Saini, the fatherinlaw of the Appellant,
for the period of year 2000 till 15.09.2009 (i.e. the date of the
Appellant's RTI Application) to the Appellant within 10 days.
19. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of. (Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
Information Commissioner (DS)
Authenticated true copy:
(T. K. Mohapatra)
Dy. Registrar
Copy to:
1. Sh. Manoj Kumar Saini
Plot No. 69, Adarsh Krishna
Nagar,l Kartarpura,
Jaipur302006
2. The Central Public Information Officer
The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
O/o the Commissioner of Income Tax
Ward 3(1) , Jaipur
3. The Appellate Authority
Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Range.3 Ward 3(1), Jaipur.
No comments:
Post a Comment