Appellant filed TEP against an officer and sought information relating to it - Respondent: Matter involves a private dispute which is sub-judice before a court and the income tax department cannot be dragged into it - CIC: Disclosure is exempt u/s 8(1)(j)
11 Apr, 2016Information sought:
(i) Copy of details of movable and immovable properties owned by both Mr. V Sundaramurthy and his wife Mrs. Tamilselvy with date of acquisition, value, maturity, etc as furnished by them.
(ii) Evidence to the sources for their investments.
(iii) Whether they have admitted to have spent Rs. 30 Lakhs for their daughter marriage and gifted 50 sovereigns of gold to their daughter?
(iv) If so, a copy of their bank statement be furnished. If they have not spent, what is the reason for their statement to the effect the police authorities?
(v) Whether there is any entry in the Bank account about a. withdrawals of Rs 30 lakhs, for marriage expenses,
b. withdrawal of funds for the purchase of 50 sovereigns of gold?
(vi) Evidence for the sources of funds for the undergraduate educational expenses of each of their children in medical colleges.
(vii) Did ITO Ward I (2) ever make any enquiry with the medical colleges, where their children completed under graduation, about the tution fees for 5½ years, capitation fees, hostel fees etc?
(viii) Did ITO Ward I (2) ever act upon the Tax Evasion Petition (dated 08/10/2012 sent by Mr. M. Siva) against Mr. V. Sundaramurthy and his wife by issue of statutory notices to reopen their assessment U/s 148 by which ITO Ward I (2) can call for information on the TEP.
(ix) State the reason for the non-issue of statutory notices in the form of Sec 142 (1), 148 so as to enable ITO Ward I (2) to verify the veracity of the contents of this TEP.
(x) It is observed that ITO Ward I (2) has failed to cause enquiries on this TEP about the financial position of Mr. Sundaramurthy and his wife Mrs. Tamilselvy so as to spend Rs. 30 lakhs for their daughter’s marriage and expenses for purchase of 50 sovereigns of gold. State the reason for failing to cause enquiries on this TEP.
(xi) The name of jewellery shop and receipts for their purchase of jewellery of 50 sovereigns may be furnished.
(xii) Furnish the name of marriage hall where their daughter’s wedding took place, rent for the marriage hall, charges for the catering including cost of food and cook’s charge, cost of groceries, photographers charge, musician charge, decoration charge etc, item wise to see whether they have really spent Rs. 30 lakhs.
(xiii) Furnish the names and address of shops where the dress materials for their daughter’s marriage were purchased, bill amount, copies of cash receipts, etc.,
(xiv) Furnish the name and address of the printer of wedding cards for their daughter’s marriage, cost and cash receipts for printing wedding cards.
(xv) Did ITO Ward I (2) call for any statement of wealth and liabilities of Mr. Sundaramurthy and his wife Mrs. Tamilselvy as on 31/03/2007, 31/03/2008, 31/03/2009, 31/03/2010, 31/03/2011 and 31/03/2012.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant: Dr. E Babu appellant’s representative through VC
Respondent: Mr. L Ramalingam CPIO’s representative through VC
The appellant’s representative stated that one Mr. Shiva had filed a TEP against Shri V. Sundaramurthy and he needs information relating to the said TEP as requested in RTI application dated 18/02/2014. The CPIO’s representative stated that the information relates to third party and 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. 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 as no larger public interest is involved. The appellant’s representative stated that he and his parents are facing criminal proceedings in a dowry case filed by the daughter of Shri V. Sundaramurthy. He informed that the petitioners have claimed that an amount of Rs.30 lakhs has been spent on the wedding besides 57 sovereign of jewelry and Rs. 5 lakhs in bank account. He submitted that the petitioners are not capable of spending such huge amount as their assessment details do not match these figures. The CPIO’s representative pointed out that matter involves a private dispute which is sub-judice before a court and the income tax department cannot be dragged into it. The appellant’s representative alleged that the income tax department has not done its job properly and the matter involves his life & liberty. He submitted that his whole family has been tortured in the litigation process.
Decision notice:
At the outset it is clarified that the CPIO, under the RTI Act, is required to furnish information/documents as available on record; however, eliciting answers to queries, redressal of grievance, reasons for non compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent public authority are outside the purview of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide it decision dated 1/7/2009 [W.P.(C) 803/2009 Vijay Prakash vs. UOI and others] has clarified that in a private dispute, between husband and wife, the basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption from disclosure enacted 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. cannot be lifted or disturbed unless the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in ‘public interest’.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande [decision dated 03/10/2012 - SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012] has held that information relating to income tax matters of an assessee is "personal information" which stands exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 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 with the respondent’s decision. The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mrs. E Jothi v. Income Tax Department in File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/004090/BS/9657