Copy of quasi-judicial orders passed by Income Tax department against Bhavasara Kshatriya Samaja were denied - Appellant claimed that members have a right to know about the activities of the association - CIC denied the information
7 Dec, 201618 November 2016
Information sought
· Certified copies of all the demand notices sent to Bhavasara Kshatriya Samaja, Iyyannanapete, Chitradurga claiming Income Tax dues from the said samaja.
· If they paid the Income Taxes due to the ITO, provide copies of challans, vouchers through which the said samaja paid the Income tax dues.
· If not, provide certified copies of all the documents through which ITO took steps and procedures for recovery of Income tax due from the said samaja.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Sreedhar Rao through VC Respondent: Mr. Guranath CPIO/ITO Ward-1 through VC
The applicant stated that he has not received the information sought in his RTI application dated 14/12/2014.
The CPIO stated that the information relates to third party and no larger public interest has been demonstrated by the applicant to justify the disclosure. He claimed exemption 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. The applicant argued that the assessee is ‘Samaja’ and cannot be treated as third party as no individual is involved. He further stated that what he is asking for is copy of quasi-judicial orders passed by the income tax department and not any personal information/information of commercial interest. He contended that there is public interest in the matter as he is asking for information for the welfare of members who have a right to know about the activities of the association. He added that it is for the CPIO to show that no larger public interest is involved in the matter.
Decision notice:
Section 2(n) “third party” means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority. of the RTI Act reads as under: “‘third party’ means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority.” In the matter at hand the appellant is seeking information relating to income matters of an assessee. Thus, he is clearly seeking third party information. The applicant’s argument that no individual is involved does not in any way dilute the assessee’s right.
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in its decision dated 24/11/2014 [W.P. (C) 85/2010 Naresh Trehan vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta] has clarified as under:
“23. In my view, the aforesaid reasoning would also be applicable to the expression "personal" used in 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. The expression 'individual' must be construed in an expansive sense and would include a body of individuals. The said exemption would be available even to unincorporated entities as also private, closely held undertaking which are in substance alter egos of their shareholders………………..”
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in its decision dated 11/06/2015 [Writ Petition No. 8953 of 2013 Shailesh Gandhi Vs CIC and ors.] has held as under:
“22. ………………..Since the right to privacy has been recognized as a fundamental right to which a citizen is entitled to, therefore, unless the condition mentioned in 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. is satisfied, the information cannot be provided. Hence the burden on the Applicant is much more onerous than may be a routine case. As indicated in the earlier part of this judgment the reason mentioned in the original application as supplemented by the grounds in the First Appeal hardly make out a case of public interest. Hence in the instant case, the said burden cannot said to have been discharged by the Petitioner. Hence the finding of the First Appellate Authority as well as the CIC that the Petitioner has not made out any case for disclosure of the information on the ground of public interest cannot be faulted with.”
Information relating to income tax matters of an assessee cannot be disclosed to third party unless the CPIO is satisfied that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. In the matter at hand the appellant has not established that the information sought is for larger public purpose. Hence, there is no need to interfere in the matter.
The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Sreedhar Rao NG v. Department of Income Tax in File No. CIC/BS/A/2015/001490/11759