Central Information CommissionSmt. Ruby Ghosh vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 9 June, 2020Author:Neeraj Kumar GuptaBench:Neeraj Kumar Guptaके ीय सूचना आयोग\n                        Central Information Commission\n                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका\n                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka\n                         नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067\n\nि तीय अपील सं       ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CCITL/A/2019/100038\n\n Smt. Ruby Ghosh                                            ... अपीलकता/Appellant\n\n                                      VERSUS\n                                       बनाम\n\n The CPIO, Income Tax Officer,                              ... ितवादी /Respondent\n Ward 1(5), Income Tax\n Department, M G Marg, Civil\n Lines, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.\n\nRelevant dates emerging from the appeal:\n\n RTI : 06.08.2018               FA    : 10.09.2018          SA      : 01.01.2019\n\n CPIO : 24.08.2018              FAO : 12.10.2018            Hearing : 02.06.2020\n\n                                     ORDER1.       The appellant filed an application under theRight to Information Act, 2005(RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Income Tax\nOfficer, Ward 1(5), Income Tax Department, M G Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad,\nUttar Pradesh. The appellant seeking information on four points, including, inter-\nalia:-(i)    Information regarding Income Tax Returns filed by her husband Sh.Subhash Ghosh from the year 2012 to 2018;(ii)   Whether any inquiry or action was ordered by the department against\n                her husband Sh. Subhash Ghosh from the year 2012 to 2018;Page 1 of 6(iii)    Whether if her husband has disclosed the income of Rs. 10 Lakhs\n               received as fees from Roman Catholic Diocese of Allahabad in the year\n               2017; and(iv)     whether his husband has disclosed about the ownership of flat bearing\n               H. No LIG 277, Neem Sarai, Allahabad in his tax returns.2.    As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed\nthe first appeal dated 10.09.2018 requesting that the information should be provided\nto her. The first appellate authority was ordered on 12.10.2018 and disposed of her\nfirst appeal. She filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3)of the RTI Act before the\nCommission on the ground that information has not been provided to her and\nrequested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct\ninformation.Hearing:3.    The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call and was represented\nthrough her son Sh. Robin Ghosh. The respondent, Sh. Arvind Kumar, Income Tax\nOfficer attended the hearing through audio-call.4.    The appellant submitted that no information has been provided to her by the\nrespondent on her RTI application dated 06.08.2018. The appellant stated that she is\nentitled to get this information under theRTI Act. The appellant further referred to\nthe decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur Bench on\n15.05.2018, in the case titled asSmt. Sunita Jain Vs Pawan Kumar Jain and Ors.\n(W.A No168/2015) and Smt. Sunita Jain vs BSNL and ors. The Hon'ble Madhya\nPradesh High Court has held that as the parties are husband and wife, therefore the\nwife is entitled to know what remuneration the husband is getting.5.    The respondent referred to the CPIO reply dated 24.08.2018 and FAA order\ndated 12.10.2018 and stated that the information sought by the appellant is personal\ninformation of third party, which cannot be disclosed under the provisions of thePage 2 of 6RTI Act. The respondent further referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court\nof India inGirish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner\n& Ors.vide which personal information of third party cannot be disclosed.Decision:6.      The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after\nperusal of records, observes that the information sought by the appellant regarding\nincome tax details of her husband, whether her husband has disclosed the income of\nfees and/or ownership of flat, etc. is personal information of third party, which\ncannot be disclosed underSection 8(1)(j)of the RTI Act. The Commission referred\nto the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India inGirish Ramchandra\nDeshpande vs. Central Information Commission& ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012\ndated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal\n     information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) ofSection\n     8(1)of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public\n     Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate\n     Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such\n     information."However, making a distinction withthe said judgment, the Division Bench of the\nHon'ble High Court of M.P. in the matter ofSmt. Sunita Jain vs. Pawan Kumar Jain\nand othersW.A. No. 168/2015 andSmt. Sunita Jain vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam\nLimited and othersW.A. No. 170/2015 dated 15.05.2018 had in a matter where the\ninformation seeker had sought the salary details of her husband from the employer\nheld as under:Page 3 of 6"While dealing with theSection 8(1)(j)of the Act, we cannot lose sight of the\n     fact that the appellant and the respondent No.1 are husband and wife and as a\n     wife she is entitled to know what remuneration the respondent No.1 is getting.\n     Present case is distinguishable from the case ofGirish Ramchandra Deshpande(supra) and therefore the lawlaid down bytheir Lordships in the case ofGirish\n     Ramchandra Deshpande(supra) are not applicable in the present case. In view of\n     the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by\n     the Writ Court in W.P. No.341/2008. Similarly, the W.A. No.170/2015 is also\n     allowed and the impugned order passed in W.P. No.1647/2008 is set aside."7.      Moreover, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in the matter\nof Rajesh Ramachandra Kidile vs. Maharashtra SIC and Ors in W.P. No. 1766 of\n2016 dated 22.10.2018 held as under:"8. Perusal of this application shows that the salary slips for the period\n           mentioned in the application have been sought for by the Advocate. As\n           rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the salary slips\n           contain such details as deductions made from the salary, remittances made\n           to the Bank by way of loan instalments, remittances made to the Income\n           Tax Authority towards part payment of the Income Tax for the concerned\n           month and other details relating to contributions made to Provident Fund,\n           etc. It is here that the information contained in the salary slips as having\n           the characteristic of personal nature. Any information which discloses, as\n           for example, remittances made to the Income tax Department towards\n           discharge of tax liability or to the Bank towards discharge of loan liability\n           would constitute the personal information and would encroach upon the\n           privacy of the person. Therefore as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the\n           case ofGirish Ramachandra Deshpande(supra) such an information could\n           not be disclosed under the provisions of theRTI Act. This is all the morePage 4 of 6so when the information seeker is a person who is totally stranger in blood\n          or marital relationship to the person whose information he wants to lay his\n          hands on. It would have been a different matter, had the information been\n          sought by the wife of the petitioner in order to support her contention in a\n          litigation, which she filed against her husband. In a litigation, where the\n          issue involved is of maintenance of wife, the information relating to\n          the salary details no longer remain confined to the category of\n          personal information concerning both husband and wife, which is\n          available with the husband hence accessible by the wife. But in the\n          present case, as stated earlier, the application has not been filed by the wife.9. Then, by the application filed under the provisions of theRTI Act,\n          information regarding mere gross salary of the petitioner has not been\n          sought and what have been sought are the details if the salary such as\n          amounts relating to gross salary, take home salary and also all the\n          deductions from the gross salary. It is such nature of the information sought\n          which takes the present case towards the category of exempted\n          information.10. All these aspects of the matter have not been considered by the\n          authority below and, therefore, I find that its order is patently illegal, not\n          sustainable in the eyes of law."8.    Taking into consideration the aforementioned analysis and the judgments of\nthe Higher Courts, the Commission directs the respondent to inform the appellant\nabout the generic details of the net taxable income/gross income of her husband held\nand available with the Public Authority, within a period of 15 working days from\nthe date of receipt of this order.9.    The details/copy of income tax returns and other personal information viz.\nownership details of flat, fees details, etc. (and other information sought in the RTIPage 5 of 6application) of third party need not to be disclosed to the appellant except as\nmentioned at para no. 8 above.10.   With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.11.   Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कुमार गु ा)\n                                      Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )\n\n                                                          िदनां क / Date:-02.06.2020\n\nAuthenticated true copy\n(अिभ मािणत स#ािपत ित)\n\n\nS. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),\nDy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),\n(011-26105682)\n\n\nAddresses of the parties:1.    The CPIO, Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5),\n      I.T.O. & Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, Income Tax Department,\n      38, M G Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.2.    Smt. Ruby Ghosh,Page 6 of 6