Can tax evasion details of third party be disclosed for defending a case in court?
15 Jul, 2012Background
The appellant referred to an application [Tax Evasion Petition (TEP)] filed with the office of CIT, Income Tax Department (ITD) relating to tax evasion by a person and sought information on action taken by the ITD on the same. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred the Right to Information (RTI) request to ITO Ward-1, with directions to take further action as the matter related to his jurisdiction. The PIO denied the information under section 8(i)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, stating that the said person has objected to any information relating to him being shared with the appellant as the information sought was personal and has no relevance to public interest. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) stated that the PIO had relied upon the decision of the full bench of the CIC in a similar case in which the issue of disclosure of third party information regarding income tax return etc. had been held as ‘personal information’ exempt 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. . However, the FAA directed the PIO to provide a point wise reply to the appellant regarding procedural aspects of TEP and the outcome of the investigation made in respect of TEP filed against the said person. On the direction of the FAA, the PIO provided the information.
Proceedings
The PIO submitted that whatever information was available at that point of time, has already been provided to the appellant. The appellant made a reference to two cases:
- Manoj Kumar Saini vs. CBDT dt 24.3.11, wherein the CIC had ordered ITR of father-in-law to be made available to the appellant.
- He also quoted the case of Bhagat Singh vs. CIC of the Delhi High Court.
He further submitted that a case under the Dowry Act had been registered against him in August 2010 and it was alleged that articles worth Rs. 7 lacs had been given by the girl’s side as dowry and he wanted information so that he could defend himself.
View of CIC
The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the two cases quoted by the appellant do not have any relevance to his case as in both the cases only the information pertaining to the net taxable income for a particular period was ordered for disclosure. The Commission rejected the appeal, citing a Full Bench order of the CIC which has held that income tax returns are ‘personal information’ exempt 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.
Citation: Mr.Sanjay Singh Verma v. Income Tax Department in File No.CIC/DS/A/2011/001892/RM
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/478
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission