Can ITR filed by ex-wife be disclosed?
10 Jan, 2013Background
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax (IT) seeking information on action taken against his ex-wife on the basis of a Tax evasion petition (TEP) filed against her. He also wanted the details of income tax returns filed by her for 2008-09 and 2009-10 along with copies of statements of her bank accounts etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the investigation is still under progress and the tax liability has not been determined. He denied the copies of various documents sought stating that the same have been objected to by the assessee.
Proceeding
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO submitted that information sought by the appellant relating to ITRs is third party information and is exempt 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. of the RTI Act. Regarding the TEP, the PIO submitted that their enquiries were still going on and once the enquiries concluded the results would be communicated to the appellant.
View of CIC
The Commission referred to a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC wherein it was held that IT return is 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. of the RTI Act and exempt from disclosure unless larger public interest is shown. The CIC observed that the appellant has not shown any larger public interest and the information is exempt from disclosure. The Commission further directed the PIO to conclude the enquiries expeditiously and to inform the appellant about the broad outcome of the investigation without giving any specific details.
Citation: Mr. Sandeep Kamra v. ITO Ward 47(1) in File No. CIC/DS/A/2011/003804/RM
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2013/CIC/949
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission