2011 (3) TMI 18 - Commission - Indian Laws

RTI Act Whether to disclose the information regarding the income tax return to other or not - The Applicant 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 - The legislative mandate is absolutely clear on the front that the Income-tax Returns of an assessee are held by the Chief Commissioner, Income-tax only and such cannot be accessed by any other body or authority except when the Chief Commissioner himself is of the opinion that such returns be furnished to a third party in light of public interest CPIO directed to furnish the information pertaining to the net taxable income of the father-in-law of the Appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. Public interest and larger public interest in the disclosure of personal information.
3. Applicability of Section 138 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Judicial precedents and their relevance to the case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005:
The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) denied the disclosure of the father-in-law's Income-tax returns citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. This section exempts the disclosure of personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the larger public interest justifies such disclosure.

2. Public Interest and Larger Public Interest:
The appellant argued that the denial of information was unjustified as he was involved in a criminal case against the State of Rajasthan related to dowry issues. He contended that the litigation was not a private matter but involved the state, thus constituting a larger public interest. However, the judgment emphasized that the RTI Act does not require the applicant to provide reasons for requesting information (Section 6(2)). The critical factor is whether the information sought can be furnished under the Act. The Act differentiates between public and personal information, with personal information requiring a demonstration of larger public interest for disclosure.

3. Applicability of Section 138 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The judgment referred to Section 138 of the Income-tax Act, which allows the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to furnish information relating to an assessee if it is in the public interest. This provision underscores that Income-tax returns are held by the Chief Commissioner and can only be disclosed if deemed necessary for public interest by the Commissioner.

4. Judicial Precedents and Their Relevance:
The judgment cited various judicial precedents to elucidate the balance between public interest and the right to privacy. In R. K. Jain v. Union of India, it was held that public interest immunity must be balanced against the need for disclosure in the administration of justice. Similarly, in SP Gupta v. UOI, the Supreme Court emphasized that the public interest in the administration of justice could override other public interests, warranting the disclosure of documents.

Decision Notice:
The judgment concluded that the appellant's request for his father-in-law's Income-tax returns did not meet the threshold of larger public interest required under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, considering the specific circumstances and the principle of public interest, the judgment directed the CPIO to furnish the information pertaining to the net taxable income of the appellant's father-in-law for the period from 2000 to the date of the RTI application. This decision was made to ensure that the administration of justice was not thwarted by withholding relevant information.

Conclusion:
The appeal was disposed of with a directive to the CPIO to provide the net taxable income information of the appellant's father-in-law within 10 days, distinguishing this case from previous CIC decisions which did not address the issue of larger public interest in the context of net taxable income disclosure.

← Previous Next →