9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 759X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l dated 07-07-2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 27-07-2018. Thereafter, she filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information. Hearing: 3. The appellant, Smt. Basavantamma was represented in the hearing through video conferencing. Mr. Paulia C N, ITO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record. 4. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the details of the income tax returns of her estranged husband, Mr. G H Sharanappa as on the date of RTI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the income tax returns of the third respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the abovementioned information sought for qualifies to be "personal information" as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. 13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that 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 performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osure enacted under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be lifted or disturbed unless the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in 'public interest'. In the matter at hand, the appellant has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought is for larger public purpose. 8. Since filing of the Income Tax Returns by an individual with the Income Tax Department is not a public activity and rather it is in the nature of an obligation which a citizen owes to the State viz. to pay his taxes, this information cannot be disclosed to the appellant in the absence of any larger public interest relying on the legal principle enunciated in the judgment dated 11-06-2015 rendered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 8753 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lic 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. In this view, the information relating to individual assessee could not be disclosed. Unless, the CIC held that the same was justified "in the larger public interest." 10. The division bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Harish Kumar v. Provost Marshall cum Appellate Authority & Anr, LPA No. 253/2012 dated 30-03-2012 wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t this juncture, this Commission deems it appropriate to quote Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:- "2(n):- "third party" means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority." 12. From the words circumscribed u/Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, 2005, it is vividly clear that any person other than the citizen making a request for information can be termed as 'third party'. Therefore, Mr. G H Sharanappa being a person other than the RTI applicant surely comes within the definition of 'third party'. Moreover, the CPIO has also not intended to disclose the information treating it as confidential and has rather pleaded that there is no public interest in the matter. This Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter, the appellant is not entitled to seek the details of the Income Tax Returns filed by the third party, Mr. G H Sharanappa which is exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. 15. It is to be noted that the appellant has requested this Commission for disclosure of at least the 'gross income' of Mr. G H Sharanappa so that she could defend her matrimonial case. Therefore, considering the aspect of marital discord between the husband and wife vis-à-vis her right of maintenance, this Commission is of the opinion that the respondent should consider providing only the limited information of the last six years i.e. the numerical figure(s) of the 'gross income' of her husband, Mr. G H Sharanappa, within a period of 15 working da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
