Information relating to Income Tax Returns of Biju Janata Dal were denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, claiming it to be personal information - CIC: larger public interest has been established hence disclosure of the ITR is not barred under RTI
14 Jan, 2014Heard today, dated 05.11.2013.
Appellant not present.
The Public Authority is represented by Shri Suresh Sivanandan, JCIT/AA, Range-I, Bhubaneswar.
FACTS
Vide RTI dt 31.8.12, appellant had sought the following information relating to ITRs of Biju Janata Dal for AY 2002-2012:
a) Whether BJD has filed complete IT return for the above period?
b) Whether their IT return contain the following
i. Income and expenditure account
ii. Balance sheet
iii. Auditor’s report
iv. Schedules
v. Contribution reports
vi. Copy of assessment order.
c) If yes, provide copies of ITRs.
d) If no, whether any notice had been sent or action taken against BJD for filing of incomplete ITRs.
2 CPIO/ITO Ward 1(2), Bhubaneswar, vide letter dt 12.9.12, informed the appellant that the information sought related to a third party, their views were sought and the third party had objected to any information being shared. It was pointed out by the party representative that since they do not receive any grant from the government directly or indirectly, u/s 2(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; of the RTI Act, information regarding the party should not be supplied.
3. An appeal was filed on 25.9.12.
4. AA vide order dt 12.10.12, taking reliance on the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, denied the information as no larger public interest is involved.
5. Submissions made by public authority were heard. The Commission finds that in an earlier petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms, the Commission vide their order dt 29.4.2008, had directed CCIT Bhubaneswar to provide copies of IT Returns of the Biju Janata Dal to the appellant for the period 2002-03 to 2006-07. As the information sought in the present appeal also pertains to the period 2002-03 to 2011-12, the Commission has asked the FAA to clarify as to whether the earlier order of the Commission had been complied with. As the FAA was not aware of the status, the Commission has directed FAA to provide a written response within two weeks and a final decision would be taken on receipt of the same.
(Rajiv Mathur)
Central Information Commissioner
24.12.2013
6. The Commission is in receipt of a letter dt 25.11.13 from JCIT/FAA Range-I, Bhubaneswar which is taken on record. He has submitted that IT returns for FY 2005-06 was provided to the appellant as per CIC order dt 29.4.08. He has further submitted that in view of recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dt 12.10.12, the disclosure of IT Returns is exempted u/s 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 Act, being personal information.
DECISION
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgement dt 3.10.12 (Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs CIC) has held as follows:
“14. The details disclosed by a person in his Income Tax Return are ‘personal information’ which stand exempted from disclosure under Clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest...”
8. CIC in its decision CIC/AT/A/2007/01029, 01263-1270 dt 29.4.2008 wherein Biju Janata Dal was also a party has held as follows:
“38. The laws of the land do not make it mandatory for political parties to disclose the sources of their funding, and even less so the manner of expending those funds. In the absence of such laws, the only way a citizen can gain access to the details of funding of political parties is through their Income Tax Returns filed annually with Income Tax authorities. This is about the closest the political parties get to accounting for the sources and the extent of their funding and their expenditure. There is unmistakable public interest in knowing these funding details which would enable the citizen to make an informed choice about the political parties to vote for. The RTI Act emphasizes that “democracy requires an informed citizenry” and that transparency of information is vital to flawless functioning of constitutional democracy. It is nobody’s case that, while all organs of the State must exhibit maximum transparency, no such obligation attaches to political parties. Given that political parties influence the exercise of political power; transparency in their organization, functions and, more particularly, their means of funding is a democratic imperative, and, therefore, is in public interest. Insofar as the Income Tax Returns of political parties contain funding details these are liable for disclosure. ... 47. Thus, an information which is otherwise exempt, can still be disclosed if the public interest so warrants. That public interest is unmistakably present is evidenced not only in the context of the pronouncements of the Apex Court but also the recommendations of the National Commission for the Review of the Working of the Constitution and of the Law Commission.”
9. In view of the fact that a larger public interest has been established by the Commission in the judgement referred to above, the disclosure of IT Returns of Biju Janata Dal does not fall in the exemption clause of 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 RTI Act. The CPIO is directed to provide the information sought within three weeks of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.
(Rajiv Mathur)
Central Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Anil Bairwal v. ITO in File No.CIC/RM/A/2013/000640