2014 (11) TMI 907 - HC - Indian Laws

Applicability of section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act fiduciary relationship - Whether the information provided by an individual in his income tax returns is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) - Held that - The contention cannot be accepted that a fiduciary relationship within the meaning of Section 8(1)(e) of the Act can be attributed to a relationship between an assessee and the income tax authority - the information provided by an assessee in its income tax return is in compliance of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus, could not be stated to be information provided in course of a fiduciary relationship. Whether the information provided by an individual in his income tax returns is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) Held that - Following the decision in of the Act is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commr. 2012 (10) TMI 218 - SUPREME COURT - the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show-cause notices and orders of censure/punishment, etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act - 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 - the information relating to individual assesse could not be disclosed. Validity of order passed by CIC to provided inspection of records - RTI filed by PIO seeking information and all the records available with the Income tax department in respect of nine assessees - Whether income tax returns and the information provided to the income tax authorities during the course of assessment and proceedings thereafter, are exempt under the provision Section 8(1) of the Act and further whether the CIC was correct in holding that such information was required to be disclosed in public interest Held that - The CIC has misdirected itself in concluding that this was in larger public interest - there was no material to indicate that there was any corruption on the part of the income tax authorities which led to a justifiable apprehension that the said authorities were not performing their function diligently - In any event, the CIC has not found that the proceedings relating to assessment were not being conducted in accordance with law and/or required the intervention of the respondent relying upon Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi 2012 (12) TMI 577 - SUPREME COURT - disclosure of information as directed has no discernable element of larger public interest Decided in favour of petitioner.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether income tax returns and related information are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. Whether the Central Information Commission (CIC) was correct in holding that such information was required to be disclosed in public interest.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Exemption of Income Tax Returns and Related Information under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act
- Section 8(1)(d) - Commercial Confidence: The petitioners argued that income tax returns include confidential business information and their disclosure could harm competitive interests. The court acknowledged that such information, if confidential and not in the public domain, should remain so unless larger public interest necessitates disclosure.
- Section 8(1)(e) - Fiduciary Relationship: The court rejected the contention that the relationship between an assessee and the income tax authority is fiduciary, referencing the Supreme Court's interpretation in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay.
- Section 8(1)(j) - Personal Information: The court held that income tax returns of individuals are personal information and exempt from disclosure unless larger public interest justifies it. This was supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commr. The court clarified that "personal information" pertains to individuals and not corporate entities, but confidential information of corporations is protected under Section 8(1)(d).

Issue 2: Public Interest Justification for Disclosure
- CIC's Conclusion: The CIC had directed disclosure, believing it was in the larger public interest to increase public revenue and reduce corruption. The court found this reasoning flawed, stating that assessment proceedings are quasi-judicial and not public forums for intervention by unrelated parties.
- Assessment Proceedings: The court emphasized that these proceedings should be conducted by statutory authorities without external interference, as this could disrupt the process and lead to unnecessary litigation.
- No Evidence of Corruption: There was no indication of corruption among income tax authorities that would justify the respondent's intervention. The court stressed that the respondent's desire to assist in assessment proceedings did not constitute larger public interest.
- Supreme Court Guidance: Referencing Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, the court reiterated that statutory exemptions under Section 8 must be the rule, with disclosure only in exceptional cases of larger public interest, balancing privacy and information rights.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the CIC had misdirected itself in ordering the disclosure of income tax returns and related information, as there was no substantial public interest. The petitions were allowed, and the CIC's order was set aside, with each party bearing its own costs.