ITR, Ownership and Partnership of two Bricks Industry was denied u/s 8(1)(j) - Appellant: Documents needed for securing justice to her and her mother - CIC: Appellant has failed to establish any larger public interest & her locus in seeking personal info

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07-10-2022 seeking the following information:

“Under the provisions of the RTI Act 2005, certified copies of the following records or documents in complete format are required:-

a) Certified Copy of all the Income Tax Returns of M/S Ashutosh Mukherjee Bricks Industry and M/S Beli Mukherjee Bricks Industry, which is located in Noabadi, Jirania, West Tripura, Pin Code-799045, from 2004 to till today year 2022.

b) Certified Copy of all the Ownership and Partnership as well as Written Authorisation documents or records of M/S Ashutosh Mukherjee Bricks Industry and M/S Beli Mukherjee Bricks Industry, which is located in Noabadi, Jirania, West Tripura, Pin Code 799045, from 2004 to till today year - 2022.

c) Certified Copy of status or enquiry and investigation report of the Complaint petition dated 03/12/2021 (Reference to Enclosure no. 1) as addressed by the RTI applicant to the DGIT - Investigation Unit for the North-Eastern Region under the Government of India related to the subject matter of Information as mentioned in point no. 5(a) of this RTI application.

d) I also request the permission to inspect and take notes or extracts of the concerned records or documents which are sought by me in point no. 4-(a), (b) and (c) of this RTI application as per section 2(j) “right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; (iii) taking certified samples of material; (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device; of the RTI Act 2005.”

The CPIO furnished a point- wise reply to the Appellant on 01-11-2022 stating as under:

“(a) Information could not be provided in view of the provisions laid down under the 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

(b) Information could not be provided in view of the provision laid down under the 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

(c) Information not available in this office.

(d) Information could not be provided u/s 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22-11-2022. The FAA vide its order dated 16-12-2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through VC.

Respondent: Shri Rajender Kumar, ITO and CPIO, attended the hearing through VC.

The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application. She added that she is the eldest granddaughter of Shri Ashutosh Mukherjee. She added that in respect of point No. c) of the RTI Application, she is the complainant who has filed the averred complaint.

The Commission interjected and asked the Appellant to establish larger public interest and her locus in seeking personal information of third party, the Appellant failed to provide a cogent reply.

The Respondent submitted that the information sought in the instant RTI Application is related to personal information of third party which is exempted from disclosure 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. of the RTI Act. He added that with respect to information sought in point No. c) of the RTI Application, the same is related to the office of DGIT which is an exempted organization under Section 24 of the RTI Act.

A written submission has been received from the Appellant and the same has been taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below -

“1. The information sought by me is indeed of personal nature but I do not required it in larger public interest.

2. It can be understood from the records, if inspected by the commission, that the successor interests of late Ashutosh Mukherjee and Late Beli Mukherjee in relation to the concerned brick fields are involved, hence, I require the documents for self purpose and to utilise them is securing justice which has not been done to me or my mother by anybody.

3. The office of the Income Tax officer ward 1- Agartala Ps the primary tax receiving/assessing authority for both Ashutosh Mukherjee and Beli Mukherjee brick fields the subject of my query. The CPIO did not cooperate or made efforts to disclose the truth through a special order in collaboration or after consultation with the first appellate authority/higher authority and also did not attempt to take a justification from the third party which could have been possible under the RTI Act but instead tried to suppress it by giving cause of ‘privacy invasion’ to me. This is nothing but an effort to mask or hide the lacuna/gap of proper verification and following of legal procedures within their own department and also in order to secure the job because no authority whether central or state government can access tax from a person randomly without any proper verification as to whether that man/woman is legally competent/liable for such assessment or not. As for the third party who are/is also involved in relation to such concerned brick fields never bothered to conduct hearing at any point or take a consent but were connected to the office of the ITO ward No. 1 Agartala throughout for the brick field business, has done an injustice in collaboration with such jurisdictional CPIO, for making me and my mother losses whether directly/indirectly or knowingly/unknowingly. The CPIO and the First Appellate Authority did not disclose as to why they are considering the pertains of the third party as ‘protected interests’ while my request for required information is rejected when there is scope for providing my the required information under the RTI Act, provided the CPIO or the first appellate Authority intended to do so. The most absurd part of the entire process is that the information denied to me is actually linked to me late paternal grandparents for which there is no cause described to me by the CPIO when they are no more in this world.

4. The CPIO or the first appellate authority preferable do not want to disclose the information to me at any east whatever be the reason third party interest of anything else, hence the request for certified copy of records as requested by me is denied irrespective of whether I or my mother which can be overlooked by them.

5. With respect to the personal matters involved or included in my appeal, if necessary to be disclosed in the order, is up to the decision of this Hon’ble Commission to which I will abide.

6. Last but not the least there can be several reason or Act for not disclosing the certified copy of requested records to me, but if an authority has taken a decision to provide or not provide a record then it is their decision, however the consequences such as mental agony, legal battle, harassment needs to beared by the appellant i.e., me who has not harmed the third party or the concerned CPIO as well as the first appellate authority is any way. Hence I request this Hon’ble Information Commission and the Hon’ble Information Commission Shri Vinod Kumar Tiwari ji for appropriate order to provide me the requested certified copy of records in the virtue of justice. ”

A written submission has been received from Shri Rajender Kumar, ITO and CPIO, vide letter dated nil, wherein he has informed the Commission as under:

“4. The First Appellate Authority made order u/s 19(b) of the RTI Act, 2005 in the afore said appeal on 16.12.2022 (copy of the said appellate order is attached herewith) with the following remarks:-

"I am convinced that the demanded information is indeed in the nature of "personal information" I am also satisfied that this has no relationship to any public activity.

Appellant cited some personal and family issues only. Giving these to her would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. And I am not satisfied that larger public interest justifies disclosure of such information. In fact, appellant did not mention anything about public interest.

In view of the above, I find no merit in the appeal and hence I dismiss it."

5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the information sought appears to be not sharable.

6. The third party i. e. M/s Beli Mukherjee Bricks Industries, Noabadi Jirania, PO Birendra Nagar, Sub Division Sadar, Dist. West Tripura has been informed by this office for the hearing in the above detailed case vide letter bearing DIN No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1064289943(1) (copy of the letter is attached herewith for kind reference), incompliance to the directions received through your kind's hearing notice dated 03.04.2024 in the afore mentioned case.”

Decision:

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the information sought in the instant RTI Application is third party’s personal information and the disclosure of which is exempted u/s. 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission notes that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010, has held as under:

“59…in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied.

This list is indicative and not exhaustive…..”

The above ratio is applicable to this case as well. Further the Appellant has failed to establish any larger public interest and her locus in seeking personal information of third party. Hence, no intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Surabhi Mukherjee v. Income Tax Officer, CIC/CCITG/A/2023/104877; Date of Decision: 30-04-2024