CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi – 110067
File No. CIC/CC/A/2014/002812/BS/10542
09 June 2016
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Smt. Bijal N Upadhyay,
R/o – 653, Kribhconagar,
Hazira Road, Surat – 394515
Respondent : CPIO / DDO – 20(1),
Income Tax Department,
O/o the JCIT – DDO Range – 20(1),
Room No – 602, 6th Floor,
Piramal Chambers, Lalbagh, Parel,Mumbai – 400012
CPIO / ITO (HQ) Systems, Mumbai,
Income Tax Department,
O/o the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Room No – 380, 3rd Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Mumbai – 400020
RTI application filed on : 05/06/2014
PIO replied on : 29/07/2014
First appeal filed on : 28/08/2014
First Appellate Authority order : 29/09/2014
Second Appeal dated : 27/11/2014
The appellant has sought following information in respect of Mr. Ashok Kumar P Upadhyay:
• Monthly income including medical facilities, Overtime
• Bonus, LTC, TADA, Tour Allowances/expenses, Gifts etc.
• Conveyance allowance, Transportation allowance, Education allowance
• Provident Fund (PF), VPF, Pension fund, Gratuity, Annual Property Return,
• Other perks and allowances (eg. washing allowance, Magazine allowance, Canteen allowance or coupons), Loan Facilities and status of availing of the same
• Sodexo pass or such other vouchers
• Other remunerations.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Smt. Bijal N Upadhyay through VC Respondent: Mr. Pawan Kumar CPIO through VC The appellant stated that she needs the information sought in her RTI application dated 05/06/2014. She submitted that the information is needed for submission to the Family Court in connection with a domestic violence and maintenance case. The CPIO stated that the information relates to third party and they had carried out the process as outlined under Section 11 of the RTI Act, however, the assessee has objected to the disclosure. The appellant stated that the assessee is her husband and has abandoned her and her minor daughter. She informed that Shri Upadhyay the assessee has left his job and has gone in acting line.
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 return 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.
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide it decision dated 01/07/2009 [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) cannot be lifted or disturbed unless the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in ‘public interest’.
The appellant has pleaded that the information is required by her for submission to the Court so that proper maintenance is fixed for her and her minor daughter. If it be so, the appropriate remedy available to her would be to apply to the concerned Court for summoning the records of the Income Tax Department but seeking such information under the provisions of Right to Information Act is certainly not an appropriate relief.
The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta)
Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer