Details of reassessment of tax of Bajaj Health and Nutrition Private limited
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax (IT) seeking information relating to reassessment of tax of Bajaj Health and Nutrition Pvt. Ltd. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that a third party notice was served under section 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: to the third party, who has objected to disclosure of information. The appellant filed first appeal with the First Appellate authority (FAA) stating that the sought information relates to tax evasion and thus it should be disclosed. The FAA upheld the decision of the PIO.
View of CIC
The Central Information Commission (CIC) referred to a Supreme Court order in the case Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. CIC wherein it was held that the details disclosed by a person in his Income Tax Returns are “personal information” which stand 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. of the RTI Act unless a larger public interest is involved. The CIC noted that the appellant has not been able to establish that the information sought for is for larger public interest and rejected the appeal. However the CIC held that since the appellant has sought this information on the ground that it was on the basis of his complaint that the IT authorities had ordered reassessment, the PIO should inform the appellant as to whether the information provided by him was true or false and to disclose the broad outcome of the reassessment, without divulging specific details, once the process is completed.
Citation: Mr. Nemi Chand Jain v. Commissioner of IT in File No. CIC/DS/A/2011/003792/RM
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2013/CIC/969
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission