Appellant: Whether three persons had filed income tax returns & declared Sale/ Purchase of a particular property? - PIO denied disclosure of information u/s 8(1)(j) - Third Party: It is a family dispute pending in court - CIC upheld denial of information
31 Aug, 2018O R D E R
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 7 points regarding whether the three persons namely Shivraj Khanna, Renu Khanna and Neelam Khanna had filed income tax returns for the years 2004-2005 and 2008-2009, if so, whether these persons had shown and declared Sale and Purchase of the property mentioned, amount of sale deed registered by Shivraj Khanna in favour of Renu Khanna and Neelam Khanna, whether Shiv Raj Khanna had shown and declared the distribution of this sale amount of Rs. 15,80,000/- amongst legal heirs and issues related thereto. The CPIO vide its letter dated 06.05.2016 denied disclosure of information under section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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. of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied with the CPIO’s reply, the appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 01.07.2016 concurred with the CPIO’s response.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present: Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. K. P. Dinkar, ITO Ward (4) through VC;
Third Party: Mr. Shivraj Khanna, Advocate through VC;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from her representatives seeking adjournment. The attention is drawn to Para-7 of the notice dated 28.06.2018 wherein it is categorically stated that no adjournment shall be entertained.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission dated 09.07.2018 from Mr. V.K. Talwar and Mr. S.K. Talwar (S/o the Appellant) wherein it was informed at the outset that the Appellant passed away on 22.11.2017 and that as per the Will registered in the Hon’ble Court of the SubRegistrar., V-IA, Sub Divn., Model Town, District: North West, Pitampura, New Delhi, dated 16.11.2006, they were the two real sons and legal heirs of the Appellant. Furthermore, it was prayed to grant another date of hearing in the matter since they would be unable to attend the same on the stipulated date due to their personal preoccupation. As regards the information sought, they explained the background of the matter and stated that they had made several representations and Formal Complaints dated 23.07.2016 and 15.10.2016 before the JCIT, Saharanpur wherein it was mentioned that Late Shri Inder Lal Bhambri who was the absolute owner of the Property (No. 51 (old no 51 and 123) Mission Compound, Model Town, Saharanpur, UP and that by way of his “will” he had desired that on his demise, all his four sisters namely Vimla Talwar, Kaushalya Bai Khanna, Bimla Kapoor and Ash Talwar shall equally divide his properties including houses, bank accounts, dues with LIC and PF, Gratuities, etc. In pursuance of the will all the legal heirs appointed Shri Vinod Kumar Talwar and Shri Shiv Raj Khanna as the Joint Power of Attorneys vide Regd. GPA dated 27.11.2003 to look after the joint property and sell and distribute the sale amount equally among all the legal heirs. However, Mr. Shiv Raj Khanna sold the above joint property to his wife and Brother’s wife in 2004 and 2008 unilaterally without the consent of the remaining legal heirs. A complaint of such serious nature was filed but the Income Tax Department neither acknowledged their repeated Regd. Letters nor registered their Complaint for Investigation which compelled them to file the instant RTI application. Explaining the scope of Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, it was stated that when a citizen was seeking information about his own case, the aforesaid provision was not attracted. In support of its contention, the Appellant’s representative also relied on the decision of the Commission in CIC/WB/A/2006/00469 and 00394. Thus, it was prayed before the Commission to advise the JCIT, Saharanpur to provide the requested information in detail immediately or register their complaint for time bound investigation under intimation to them.
The Third Party present at the hearing objected to disclosure of its personal information and submitted that there was a family dispute regarding succession being adjudicated in the Civil Court. The Respondent further clarified that through a series of correspondence, the Appellant’s applications had been duly replied and that RTI was not the forum to adjudicate personal grievances.
The Commission referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
“14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.”
In this context, the decision of the Commission in Milap Choraria v. CBDT CIC/AT/A/2008/000628 dated 15.06.2009 can be cited wherein it had been held as under:
“15. From the above discussion, it would appear that the Income Tax Returns have been rightly held to be ‘personal information’ exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of section 8(1) of RTI Act by the CPIO and the Appellate Authority; and the appellant herein has not been able to establish that a larger public interest would be served by disclosure of this information.”
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Naresh Kumar Trehan v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta in W.P.(C) 85/2010 & CM Nos.156/2010 & 5560/2011 dated 24.11.2014 had observed as under:
“25. Indisputably, Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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. of the Act would be applicable to the information pertaining to Dr Naresh Trehan (petitioner in W.P.(C) 88/2010) and the information contained in the income tax returns would be personal information under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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. of the Act. However, the CIC directed disclosure of information of Dr Trehan also by concluding that income tax returns and information provided for assessment was in relation to a "public activity." In my view, this is wholly erroneous and unmerited. The act of filing returns with the department cannot be construed as public activity. The expression "public activity" would mean activities of a public nature and not necessarily act done in compliance of a statute. The expression "public activity" would denote activity done for the public and/or in some manner available for participation by public or some section of public. There is no public activity involved in filing a return or an individual pursuing his assessment with the income tax authorities. In this view, the information relating to individual assessee could not be disclosed. Unless, the CIC held that the same was justified "in the larger public interest"
The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the decision of Shailesh Gandhi v. CIC and Ors WP 8753 of 2013 dated 06.05.2015 had held as under
“16......the said contention is thoroughly misconceived as filing of Income Tax Returns can by no stretch of imagination be said to be a public activity, but is an obligation which a citizen owes to the State viz. to pay his taxes and since the said information is held by the Income Tax Department in a fiduciary capacity, the same cannot be directed to be revealed unless the prerequisites for the same are satisfied.
23...........Since the right to privacy has been recognised as a fundamental right to which a citizen is entitled to, therefore unless the conditions mentioned in Section 8 (1) (j) is satisfied, the information cannot be provided.”
Furthermore, the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the matter of Vinubhai Haribhai Patel (Malavia) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Civil Application No. 7187 of 2014 dated 16.07.2015 had held as under:
5. Now, turning to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the kind and nature of the information demanded by the petitioner clearly falls within the expression "personal information". The personal character of the information demanded in the nature of Income-tax Returns of the private parties to get disclosure about the payment of tax by them which was again in order to know about their status as agriculturists declared to be so by the authorities in the legal proceedings, could be indeed said to be personal. It was in the background of litigation between the petitioner and the said private persons relating to their property rights wherein the Will in favour of private parties was disputed and the disputes of civil nature were being agitated before the forum concerned and the court. This information being personal in nature, could not be claimed as a matter of right by the petitioner, rather they were clearly exempted information under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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. . The contention of larger public interest justifying the disclosure does not exist. In disclosing the said information asked for by the petitioner relating to the private parties, there was no element of public interest to be sub-served. The information was personal information relating to third parties. The attendant facts and circumstances and the litigation between the petitioner and those parties, instead indicated that the information was personal information which was asked for by the petitioner for his own personal interest and private purpose. Respondent No. 3-Central Information Commissioner was eminently justified in taking a view that there was no public interest present in the information claimed to be supplied, rightly denying the same by dismissing the appeal.”
The Appellant or his representatives were not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent and the Third Party no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka
Information Commissioner
Citation: Ms. Vimla Talwar v. Income Tax Department in Second Appeal No. CIC/CCITL/A/2017/133039-BJ, Date of Decision: 27.07.2018