Wednesday 20 February 2013

Net taxable income can be disclosed under Right ot information Act


Central Information Commission


 Appeal : No. CIC/LS/A/2010/001044­DS

 Appellant /Complainant ;Manoj kumar saini v Public Authority
Income Tax,





Date of Decision ;24 march 2011

FACTS OF THE CASE:



1. Vide

sought   information   pertaining   to   income   tax   returns   of

his father in­ law 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

pertaining   to   dowry   related   issues.   He   emphasized   that

the   litigation   was   not   a   private   matter   against   his

wife   /   father­ in ­law   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

the

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

the

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

reasons

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,

of   reasoning,   each   one   being   equally   passionate   and

emotionally driven.

8. What,   in   fact,   matters   is   whether   certain   information

which

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) 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.”

Now   I   shall   deal   with   each   of   the   respective

contentions

The   Appellant   has   contended   that   the   information

pertaining

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

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

to

is

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.”


The legislative mandate is absolutely clear on the

front

by   the   Chief   Commissioner,   Income   Tax   only   and   such

cannot

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

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

(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

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

of   information.   Protection   of   disclosure   has   to   be

ensured

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.

It   brings   me   to   the   second   contention   of   the

Appellant   which   revolves   around   the   concept   of   “larger

public

is   pursuing   a   criminal   case   against   him   and   that   since

“State”   has   decided   to   prosecute   him   because   of   legal

fiction created under Section 405 of IPC, automatically a

“larger   public   interest”   is   involved   in   the   matter.

Section   405   of   the   IPC   states   that  “Whoever,   being   in

any

over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to

his   own   use   that   property,   or   dishonestly   uses   or 

disposes

of

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

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.

The   mandate   of   the   RTI   Act   to   disclose   personal

information under Section 8(1)(j) is even stricter since

it

Mere

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.

that   false   dowry   cases   are   a   matter   of   “larger   public

interest”

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

protected   irrespective   of   their   contents,   because   there

is

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,

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

disclosure  will   be   warranted  if   such   line  of   action   is

followed.  There   is   no   absolute  ban   on   disclosure   of   IT

returns.

  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

the   other   hand,   if   it   reaches   the   conclusion   that   the 

document

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

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

In

I

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

his

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   of  P.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.”


We   direct   the   CPIO   to   furnish   the   information

pertaining  to   the   net   taxable  income   of   Shri   Munna   Lal

Saini,

of   year   2000   till   15.09.2009   (i.e.  the   date   of   the

Appellant’s  RTI  Application)  to  the  Appellant  within  10

The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.

 

Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment