rti act main income tax written manga tha,nahi mila,
ravi anu ramraika
(Querist) 05 March 2010
This query is : Resolved
sir,i ask income tax written of one person,under new ruling of rti india,but informasion officer of income tax department give a notice that person for no objection,but surely,he object and officer reject my application,then now i want go to appel, ........................... sir,,, i want new ruling of rti india, pls help me,send that ruling ,, jismain abhi 25 din pahle rti india nai faisla diya hai ki income tax return ab rti ke dayare main hai,, ya yah ruling kaha milegi,help me
ravi anu ramraika
(Querist) 05 March 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No. CIC/LS/A/2009/001232
Appellant - Smt. Madhu Garg
Public Authority - Income Tax Deptt; Jodhpur
(through : Syed Abid Ali,ITO, Ward 3(1), Jodhpur).
Date of hearing - 19.02.2010
Date of decision - 19.02.2010
Facts :-
The matter, in short, is that vide RTI application dated 1.7.2009, the appellant had requested for the IT Returns in respect of seven individuals/entities. The CPIO had disposed of the matter vide order dated 27.7.2009 which was affirmed by the FAA vide order dated 10.9.2009.
2. Aggrieved with the above decisions, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
3. Heard on 19.2.2010. Appellant not present. The Public Authority is represented by the officer named above. It is Shri Abid Ali’s submission that information in respect of two firms viz. Shyam Sunder Mahesh Kumar and Shyam & Co. has been disclosed to the appellant as she is the legal heir of her late husband Shri Shyam Sunder. However, information in regard to other individuals/entities has been denied as it is a third party information and these third parties have not consented for disclosure of information.
4. It is to be noted that third party information can be disclosed only in the larger public interest. The appellant has not established any such larger public interest in the appeal memo filed before the Commission. Nor has she has appeared before the Commission to convass her case.
DECISION
5. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the orders of CPIO and AA. The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.L. Das)
Assistant Registrar
Address :
1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1) & CPIO,
Income Tax office, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
2. Smt.Madhu Garg,
W/o Late Shri Shyam Sunder Garg,
Ist Floor 52 C Kamla Nehru Nagar,
Ist Ext. Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
Parveen Kr. Aggarwal
(Expert) 05 March 2010
Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 provides in the following manner:
"(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:
Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.
(2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) to a third party in respect of any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the request under section 6, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation under sub-section (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof and give in writing the notice of his decision to the third party.
(4) A notice given under sub-section (3) shall include a statement that the third party to whom the notice is given is entitled to prefer an appeal under section 19 against the decision."
In view of the express provision contained in the RTI Act, it is incumbent upon the PIO to afford an opportunity to the person concerned who had supplied his information to such Govt. Office and only after considering his submissions, information can be supplied. There is nothing wrong in the PIO giving notice to such an assesssee copies of whose income tax returns have been required by you.
Adv ramesh chheda
(Expert) 05 March 2010
i think querry is well answered by earlier members
Suresh CSLLM
(Expert) 06 March 2010
In Brief, information to third party it means the information seeker do not concerned with the relevant party it means private party information, is allowed only for the purpose of general public interest and not for any private purpose.
Vineet
(Expert) 06 March 2010
The CIC is taking quite opposite views in the matter. In a recent decision dated 14th December, 2009 Shri Shailesh Gandhi, CIC has given a decision which has been talk of the town for quite some time. He has held that IT Returns are public documents and none of the exemption clause applies against disclosure of these details.
A copy of order is attached.
ravi anu ramraika
(Querist) 07 March 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi 110 067.
Tel: +91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/LS/A/2009/000647/SG/5887
Appeal No. CIC/LS/A/2009/000647
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta,
102, SFS Flats DDA, C & D Block
Shalimar Bagh, Outer Ring Road
Delhi 110088
Respondent : The Public Information Officers
C/o Commissioner of Income Tax
CIT (Central)-2, Room No. 341
E-2, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Ext.,
New Delhi-110055
RTI application filed on : 14/01/2009
PIO replied : 16/02/2009
First Appeal filed on : 19/02/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 08/05/2009
Second Appeal filed on : 13/05/2009
Information sought:
All records available with the income tax department including assessment records of all
the levels with regard to:
1. Escorts Limited AY (1998-99 to 2005-2006)
2. Mr. Rajan Nanda AY (1998-99 to 2005-2006)
3. Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Chandigarh (Society) AY (2001-2002)
4. Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Delhi (Society) AY (1998-99 to 2001-
2002)
5. Dr. Naresh Trehan AY (1998-99 to 2005-2006)
6. Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Limited Chandigarh AY (2000-2001 to
2005-2006)
7. Big Apple Clothing (P) Limited AY (1998-99 to 2005-2006)
8. AAA Portfolio (P) Limited (1998-99 to 2005-2006)
Required:
1. Inspection of all records in above respect.
2. Kindly provide the copies of documents mentioned at the time of inspection.
3. Kindly provide the officers (from assessing officers to CCIT), who are the
officers to take action on “Tax Evasion Petition†given by me from 01/08/2008
till date.
PIO’s Reply:
The PIO vide his reply stated that as the information related to third parties, they were
sent the notice accordingly. Third parties in reply to the notice objected strongly against
the inspection as well as disclosure of information relating to their income tax records.
Third Parties submitted that the information sought included certain personal documents
and details which were part of the Income Tax Proceedings and if these details were
released, they might have potential to expose the assessee to grave danger from
unscrupulous and criminal elements. According to the PIO the Applicant was not able to
substantiate as to what is the overriding public interest in disclosing the information
relating to third parties and unless the case of public interest is established, the disclosure
would lead to an invasion of privacy of the assessees.
In umpteen number of cases the CIC has observed that income tax related information are
personal information of the third parties and therefore, should not be disclosed as such u/s
8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005.
In so far as the issue mentioned at Sl. No. 3 of the petition is covered, this is under
compilation and action as deemed fit would be taken in due course time.
Grounds for First Appeal:
PIO’s refusal to grant information.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
The FAA upheld PIO’s reasons to refuse to grant the information and therefore, did not
allow the appeal. With regards to supply of copies of TEPs, PIO was directed to supply
copies along with the action taken thereon.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Nothing was stated in the information presently given to the Applicant as to what has
been done by the Income Tax Department on the Tax Evasion Petition given by others.
Various TEPs were not given to him related to Escorts Limited, Mr. Rajan Nanda and
others. Refusal to give information not valid.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing on 18/08/2009:
The following were present.
Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Gupta
Respondent: Mr. VM Mahidhar, PIO, Asst. Commissioner IT
The PIO stated he was not prepared for the hearing. The Commission also felt that since
third parties have objected they should be heard. The Commission decided to adjourn the
matter and also asked the respondent to serve the notice on all the third parties and give
them copies of all the documents. The next hearing was fixed on 18 September 2009 at
4.30pm.
Relevant facts arising during the hearing held on 18/09/2009:
The following persons were present:
Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Kr. Gupta
Respondent: Mr. VM Mahidhar, PIO, Asst. Commissioner IT, Central Circle 3
Third parties: Mr. PR Rajhans on behalf of Dr. Naresh Trehan;
Mr. Arun Kumar Bhatia on behalf of Escorts Ltd. (Delhi &
Chandigarh); AAA Portfolios Pvt. Ltd., Big Apple Clothings Pvt. Ltd.,
and Mr. Rajan Nanda,
Mr. NL Gandhi on behalf of Escorts Heart Institute and Research
Centre.
Mr. Rajhans stated the following “Disclosure of information in the course of an income
tax assessment does not constitute an invasion on the privacy of an individual and is in
accordance with statutory obligation. Disclosure of information to any third party
amounts to invasion of privacy as these are personal information furnished to income tax
department in course of assessmentsâ€.
Mr. Bhatia and Mr. Gandhi were asked if they wanted to make any oral submissions.
They stated that whatever they wanted to say was stated in the written submissions.
The PIO Mr. Mahidhar stated that “all the assessments were completed on the basis of the
information forwarded by the investigation wing and also based on the information
claimed to be furnished by the Appellant and all these assessments were challenged by
the third parties and were pending before different Appellate Authorities that is ITAT
level, Hon’ble High Court, New Delhi and Hon’ble Supreme Court. Logically no
investigation could be said to be complete unless it has reached a point where the final
decision on the basis of that investigation is taken. In this context the progress of
assessments are therefore exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h).â€
The Commission asked the PIO to give reasons as to how Section 8(1)(h) would apply in
the instant case. He states “one assessment in the case of EHIRC, Chandigarh Society for
the AY 2001-2002 was restored back to an assessing officer by the Hon’ble ITAT
Chandigarh. Because it is in the initial stages it would impede the process of
investigationâ€. He did not give any explanation how the investigation would be impeded.
He further claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(e) and (j).
The Commission asked Mr. Bhatia of Escorts who has submitted Decision No.
CIC/AT/A/2006/00586 of 18/09/2007 how this decision was relevant in the instant case.
Mr. Rajhans stated that information should be sought in public interest.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta stated that Section 8(1) (j) cannot apply to legal entities and
corporates and only applies to individuals. Mr. Gupta further states that Dr. Naresh
Trehan’s assessment was revised upwards by Rs. 14.7 crores at the CIT (Appeal). This is
based on information received from RTI Application. The CIT (Appeal) has confirmed
the addition of Rs. 14.7 crores over and above the returned income. But ITAT has
restored back the issue to the Assessing officer to reassess the income. The Appellant
alleges that this addition of Rs. 14.7 crores is only of book value which only about 20%
of the market value.
The order was reserved on 18/09/2009. The Respondents were directed to send written
submissions by 23/09/2009 and the Appellant was asked to respond by 30/09/2009.
Decision announced on 14 December 2009:
The Commission has received written submissions on behalf of Dr. Naresh Trehan on
23/09/2009 and 01/10/2009. The Commission has also received submissions from the
Appellant 23/09/2009.
After perusing the submissions made during the hearing and considering the submissions
made during the hearing, it appears that the following exemptions have been claimed by
the Department and the Third parties- Section 8(1)(b), (d), (e), (h), and (j). Section 3 of
the RTI Act very succinctly states ‘Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall
have the right to information.’ Thus according to the RTI Act, if the information as
defined under Section 2(f) is not exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) or 9 of the
Act, and is held by a public authority as defined under 2 (h), it has to be disclosed. It is
clear that the information sought is information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI
Act and is held by the Income Tax department which is a Public authority. Therefore, the
Commission will examine the applicability of the exemption clauses claimed by the
Department and the Third parties.
The Citizen’s right to Information can only be restricted, if the disclosure is exempt under
Section 8 (1) of RTI Act 2005. The Commission will examine the applicability of each of
the exemptions:
Section 8(1) (b) of the Act provides-
8. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no
obligation to give any citizen,—
(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be
published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of
which may constitute contempt of court;
Four third parties have relied on an earlier order of the Commission dated 18/09/2007 in
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00586 to claim that information should not be disclosed to
the Appellant. One of the grounds referred to by the Commission in this order is Section
8(1)(b).
This exemption clause can be applied only when the disclosure of information has been
expressly forbidden by any court of law or tribunal. In its earlier order the Commission
had referred the matter back to the First Appellate Authority on the ground that a
determination had to be made whether the tribunal had expressly forbidden the disclosure
of information or not. Therefore it is clear that in the earlier order of the Commission the
exemption under Section 8(1)(b) had not be applied. Furthermore, in the present case the
Department and the Third Parties have not established before the Commission that there
exists an order of any Court or tribunal which forbids the disclosure of the information
that has been sought by the Appellant. Since no evidence has been shown that the
disclosure of the exemption has been expressly forbidden by any court of law or tribunal,
there appears to be no ground for claiming exemption under Section 8 (1) (b).
Section 8(1) (d) of the Act provides-
8. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no
obligation to give any citizen,—
(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or
intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the
competitive position of a third party, unless the competent
authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the
disclosure of such information;
This ground for exemption has been relied on by three third parties. The Commission has
held in Shivaji Pandurang Raut v. Income Tax, Pune CIC/MA/A/2006/00806 dated
05/02/2007 that denial of information relating to the details of taxes assessed and paid by
the people of the Satara District under Section 8(1)(d) is not justified.
Furthermore, none of the third parties have explained before the Commission how this
ground can apply in the present case and how the information which the Appellant has
been sought is of commercial confidence and that its disclosure would harm their
competitive interest. Unless both conditions are established, this exemption cannot apply.
The last year for which information is sought relates to AY 2005-2006 ie. financial year
ending 2005. It is extremely unlikely that there would be any information relating to
2005, which if revealed in 2009 could harm the competitive position of any of the third
parties. No arguments have been advanced even to justify that the information is one
where ‘commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property’ will get disclosed.
In view of this the claim for this exemption has been made without any grounds.
Section 8(1) (e) of the Act provides-
8. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no
obligation to give any citizen,—
(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship,
unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public
interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
The Department and all the third parties have relied on this ground of exemption. For
Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act to apply there must be a fiduciary relationship and holder
of information must hold the information in his fiduciary capacity. The traditional
definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to
someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of
that relationship. In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties,
such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. financial analyst or trustee.
The information must be given by the holder of information when there is a choice- as
when a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, or a patient goes to particular doctor. It is also
necessary that the principal character of the relationship is the trust placed by the provider
of information in the person to whom the information is given. An equally important
characteristic for the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider
of information gives the information for using it for the benefit of the giver. All
relationships usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as
fiduciary.
In the present case, the information the Appellant is seeking information which the
Department has received from members of the public as a result of their statutory
obligation to file tax returns. Members of the public who have sent this information to the
Department did not have any choice with regard to who they would like to send this
information to. In fact, as there is a legal obligation to file these returns, members of the
public have no choice with regard to the disclosure of this information to the Department.
Traditionally, lawyer-client relationship and doctor-patient relationship have been
considered to be examples of fiduciary relationship. In both these relationships, the
lawyer and the doctor act on behalf and in the interest of their client and patient. The
Department makes a tax assessment or takes any other action on this information based
on the law and regulations relating to income tax. The Department does not take this
action for the benefit of the tax assessees or in their personal interest. If the department
were to take action for the benefit of the assessees, it would be considered a corrupt
practice. The element of trust involve in such a situation is not the one required for a
fiduciary relationship. As the Department cannot be considered to be holding the
information in a fiduciary capacity, information sought by the Appellant, therefore,
cannot be denied on this ground.
Section 8(1) (h) of the Act provides-
8. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no
obligation to give any citizen,—
(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or
apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
Dr. Naresh Trehan, one of the third parties, and the Department have relied on this
ground of exemption. Both parties have stated that as the process of assessment has not
been finalized till date and investigation is still underway, exemption under Section
8(1)(h) applies. But the mere fact that an investigation is underway and that assessment
has not been finalized is not a sufficient ground for the application of Section 8(1)(h).
The High Court of Delhi has held in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP (C) No. 3114/2007
that-
“It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot
be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding
information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such
information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should
be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be
reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section
8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging
demands for informationâ€
The PIO has contention that, “Logically no investigation could be said to be complete
unless it has reached a point where the final decision on the basis of that investigation is
taken. In this context the progress of assessments are therefore exempt from disclosure
under Section 8(1)(h)â€, only states that the investigation is not over. No claim has been
made that the process of investigation would be impeded in any manner.
Neither party has been able to establish before the Commission how the disclosure of
information to the Appellant would impede the process of investigation. Therefore,
Section 8(1)(h) cannot be applied in the present case to claim exemption from disclosure
of information.
Section 8(1) (j) of the Act provides-
8. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no
obligation to give any citizen,—
(j) 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.
The final exemption claimed by the Department, Dr. Naresh Trehan and three other third
parties is under the Section 8(1)(j). The three other third parties are the Escorts Heart
Institute and Research Centre, Delhi, Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre,
Chandigarh and Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre Ltd. Section 8(1)(j) is with
regard to personal information and therefore it can only be claimed by natural persons
and not by corporate entities. The three Institutes cannot claim to have ‘personal’
information. There is a difference between having a personality, i.e. a legal personality,
and owning ‘personal information’. Personal information is information relating to a
natural person, not a legal person. Words in a law should normally be given the meanings
given in common language. In common language we would ascribe the adjective
'personal' to an attribute which applies to an individual and not to an Institution or a
Corporate. From this it flows that 'personal' cannot be related to Institutions,
organisations or corporates. Hence Section 8(1)(j) cannot be applied when the
information concerns institutions, organisations or corporates. Therefore, the
Commission is of the opinion that Section 8(1)(j) cannot be relied on by these three third
parties as they are not natural persons.
With regard to the information relating to Dr. Naresh Trehan it has been argued by his
representative that the information sought is personal as it contains personal financial
information of the assessee including various assets, income and expenditure and the
disclosure of this information has no relationship with any public activity or interest. It
has been alleged that the information has been sought with ill will and malice, with the
motive to harass and blackmail the assessee. Furthermore, the Appellant is likely to
misuse the information and could endanger the life and property of the assessee if the
information goes in the hands of unsocial elements. There is no larger public interest
served in disclosing this information to the Appellant.
The Commission has considered the submissions made by the Appellant, the Department
and the representative of Dr. Naresh Trehan. To qualify for this exemption the
information must satisfy the following criteria:
1. It must be personal information.
There is no doubt that information with regard to Dr. Naresh Trehan is personal
information.
2. It must not have been disclosed to the public authority as part of a public
activity
The phrase 'disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest'
means that the information must have been given in the course of a Public activity.
Various Public authorities in performing their functions routinely ask for 'personal'
information from Citizens, and this is clearly a public activity. When a person applies for
a job, or gives information about himself to a Public authority as an employee, or asks for
a permission, licence or authorisation, all these are public activities. Also when a Citizen
provides information in discharge of a statutory obligation, this too is a public activity.
Therefore, information provided by an assessee to the Department for purposes of income
tax assessment is information disclosed in relation to a public activity and therefore this
part of Section 8(1)(j) is inapplicable in the present case.
3. The disclosure of the information would lead to unwarranted invasion of the
privacy of the individual.
Certain human rights such as liberty, freedom of expression or right to life are universal
and therefore would apply uniformly to all human-beings worldwide. However, the
concept of 'privacy' is a cultural notion, related to social norms, and different societies
would look at these differently. Therefore referring to laws of other countries to define
‘privacy’ cannot be considered a valid exercise to constrain the Citizen’s fundamental
Right to Information in India.
Parliament has not codified the right to privacy so far, hence in balancing the Right to
Information of Citizens and the individual's Right to Privacy the Citizen's Right to
Information would be given greater weightage.
The State has no right to invade the privacy of an individual. There are some
extraordinary situations where the State may be allowed to invade the privacy of a
Citizen. In those circumstances special provisions of the law apply; usually with certain
safeguards.
Therefore where the State routinely obtains information from Citizens, this information is
in relationship to a public activity and will not be an intrusion on privacy. As this
information has been provided by the assessee to meet his legal obligations, there is no
unwarranted invasion of his privacy by the state. Therefore the disclosure of the same
information to another person cannot be construed as being an unwarranted invasion of
the privacy of the individual.
Given our dismal record of misgovernance and rampant corruption which colludes to
deny Citizens their essential rights and dignity, it is in the fitness of things that the
Citizen’s Right to Information is given greater primacy with regard to privacy.
Hence information provided by individuals in fulfillment of statutory requirements
will not be covered by the exemption under Section 8 (1) (j).
It has come out during the hearing before the Commission,- and through the submissions
made by the various parties,- that the Appellant is an informer for the Department.
Escorts has also raised the matter in its written submissions of 17 September 2009, and
asked the Commission to decide “Whether an informer of the I.T. department can seek
information in respect of the records of a third party for an ulterior motive?†The ulterior
motive being referred to appears to be the reward money which the appellant might get.
The Appellant has given a list of additions made by various Tax evasion officers relating
to the information being sought by him:
Escorts Limited. Page K-5 of Letter dated 22/9/2009
A Y 2001-2
Escorts limited . Page k-5 & k-7
Amount in
Crore
Addition Income( Tax evasions) by Assessing
Officer
106.94
On Hospital theft case only
88.11
On Hospital theft case confirmed by CIT (A)
86.40
ITAT had reduce hospital theft case amount
Zero
Mr Rajan Nanda . Page K-12 of Letter dated 22/9/2009
A Y 2003-4
Amount in
Crore
Addition Income( Tax evasions) by Assessing
Officer
8.05
Addition Income( Tax evasions) confirmed by CIT
(A)
8.05
Addition Income ( Tax evasions) confirmed by
ITAT
0.35
Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Chandigarh
Page K-10 of Letter dated 22/9/2009
Page k -10
A Y 2001-2
Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Chandigarh ( Society) .
PageK 12
Amount in
Crore
Addition Income( Tax evasions) by Assessing Officer
154.34
Addition Income( Tax evasions) confirmed by CIT (A)
149.08
ITAT had remanded back case to Assessing officer to reassess tax evasion
Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Limited Chandigarh
Page K-11 of Letter dated 22/9/2009
Amount in
Crore
A Y 2003-
4
Addition Income( Tax evasions) by Assessing Officer
100.68
Addition Income( Tax evasions) confirmed by CIT (A)
0.13
No appeal by assesee and income tax department.
Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Delhi ( Society)
Page K-8 of Letter dated 22/9/2009
A y 2001-
2
Amount in
Crore
Addition Income( Tax evasions) by Assessing Officer
156.44
Further Proceeding are stayed by Delhi High Court
Vide WP ( C ) 11909/2005 on assesee appeal.
Dr Naresh Trehan
Page K-9 of Letter dated 22/9/2009
A Y 2001-2
Amount in
Crore
Addition Income( Tax evasions) by Assessing Officer
10.08
Addition Income( Tax evasions) confirmed by CIT (A)
14.7
ITAT had remanded back case to Assessing officer to reassess tax
evasion
Big Apple Clothing (P) Limited
Page K-13 of Letter dated 22/9/2009
A Y 2001-2
Amount in
Crore
Addition Income( Tax evasions) by Assessing Officer
6.44
Addition Income( Tax evasions) confirmed by CIT (A)
7.35
appeal pending with ITAT
AAA Portfolio (P) Limited
Page K-14 of Letter dated 22/9/2009
A y 2001-
2
Amount in
Crore
Addition Income( Tax evasions) by Assessing Officer
8.5
Addition Income( Tax evasions) confirmed by ITAT
6.81
Thus the appellant has pointed out that Assessing officers have added hundreds of crores
as additional income and CIT (A) has also confirmed some of them. He fears that a lot of
alleged tax evasion will go unpunished leading to a loss of revenue and perhaps his
reward money. If Citizens monitor this through RTI, it could be a major gain for public
revenue and perhaps a good check on corrupt officials.
It has been statutorily provided that informers to the Income tax Department would be
rewarded. Hence the State has recognized that the informer who gives information about
tax evasion is valued and needs to be rewarded to motivate and recognize the contribution
of the informer. Therefore, if the Appellant is assisting the Department by bringing
instances of tax evasion to its notice, and if he is using information that he has received
through RTI Applications for this purpose, it cannot be considered to be misuse of
information in any way, nor can it be considered to be an unwarranted invasion of
privacy of the assessee. In that case even if any of the exemption clauses of Section 8 (1)
were applicable it certainly serves a larger public interest, if tax evasion is curbed. It is
the stated objective of the Act, - as spelt out in its preamble,- to curb corruption and it is
widely accepted that evasion of taxes is facilitated because of large scale corruption in
Government offices.
Hence, the arguments raised by Dr. Trehan that the RTI application is motivated by ill
will and malice, with the motive to harass and blackmail the assessee are unfounded
because as stated above a public interest is served if tax evasion is curbed. Further no
harm can be caused to the privacy of Dr. Trehan in this case because the assessing
authority in this case has already confirmed that in some cases tax has been evaded. The
contention that the Appellant is likely to misuse the information and could endanger the
life and property of the assessee also cannot be accepted. Denying information under the
RTI Act on the mere apprehension that there is likelihood that the information sought can
be misused would defeat the very objective of the RTI Act which seeks to ensure the
information is freely accessed. Thus if an informer is using RTI to get information which
could help him to claim a reward by showing that tax has been evaded, it cannot be
denied that a large public interest is being served of getting the public’s due taxes and
curbing corruption.
The Commission concludes that no case has been made showing that any of the
exemption clauses apply to the information sought by the appellant. The onus to prove
that a denial of information was justified is on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI
Act. Though it is not necessary, the appellant has also shown that a larger public interest
of increasing public revenue and reducing corruption may be served by disclosure of the
information, which would outweigh any harm to any protected interest.
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the inspection of the records and also the other
information sought by the appellant before 15 January 2009. The Respondent is further
directed to send a copy of this order to the Third parties immediately.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
14 December 2009
In any case correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number)
