CIC orders disclosure of non-tax documents in RTI case, balancing transparency and confidentiality.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) allowed the appeal in a case involving a request for information related to non-payment of reward and alleged tax evasion. The CIC directed the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to disclose documents not related to tax assessments of parties involved in High Court cases within fifteen working days. The decision highlighted transparency and accountability under the RTI Act, balancing the need for confidentiality with the public interest in disclosure.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Request for information and inspection of records related to non-payment of reward and alleged tax evasion.
2. Response from CPIO regarding the requested information.
3. Appeal to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and subsequent order.
4. Arguments before the Appellate Authority.
5. Second appeal to the Central Information Commission (CIC).
6. Decision of the CIC regarding the appeal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Request for Information and Inspection of Records:
The appellant, Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, requested various documents and inspections related to his complaint about the non-payment of reward and alleged assistance to tax evaders by the Income Tax Department. Specifically, he sought copies of letters, file inspections, file numbers, file notings, and documents related to his complaint.

2. Response from CPIO:
The CPIO, Shri V.K. Chopra, responded by providing some information and offering an inspection of files on a specified date. The response included details about the custody of the files and the procedure for inspection and obtaining copies upon payment of statutory fees. However, certain requests were deemed not applicable at the present time.

3. Appeal to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax:
Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta appealed to the Chief Commissioner, arguing that the information should be provided under the RTI Act and that the public interest in disclosure outweighed any harm. He cited previous CIC orders supporting his request and contended that the denial of information was not justified under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.

4. Arguments Before the Appellate Authority:
The CPIO argued that the correspondence related to the reward claim was of a fiduciary nature and should remain confidential. They also mentioned that the CIC's decision was being challenged in the Delhi High Court and that disclosing the information was against public interest. The Chief Commissioner agreed with the CPIO, stating that the matter was sub-judice and no information should be provided until the High Court's decision.

5. Second Appeal to the Central Information Commission (CIC):
In his second appeal to the CIC, Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta requested directions to provide the information, penalize the delay, ensure record maintenance, and any additional relief deemed fit. During the hearing, he argued that the information sought was not related to the tax returns but to the internal correspondence regarding his complaint. The respondents reiterated that the matter was sub-judice and that the information was part of a fiduciary relationship.

6. Decision of the CIC:
The CIC examined the arguments and relevant legal precedents, including the decision in WP(C) 228/2009, which discussed the concept of fiduciary relationships. The CIC concluded that the information sought by Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta did not fall under the fiduciary exemption of Section 8(1)(e). The appeal was allowed to the extent that documents not related to the tax assessments of parties involved in the High Court cases should be disclosed. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, was directed to provide the remaining information within fifteen working days.

Conclusion:
The CIC's decision emphasized the principle of transparency and accountability under the RTI Act. It directed the disclosure of information that did not pertain to the sub-judice matters, ensuring that the appellant's request for internal correspondence related to his complaint was addressed. The decision balanced the need for confidentiality in certain aspects with the public interest in disclosure.

---