Court emphasizes compliance procedures under Right to Information Act in Income Tax Returns disclosure case.

The court set aside the Central Information Commission's order directing disclosure of Income Tax Returns, emphasizing the need for compliance with procedures under the Right to Information Act. It highlighted that suspicion of underreported income did not warrant disclosure without following prescribed steps, ultimately ruling against the disclosure based on the lack of adherence to statutory procedures.

---

---

Issues:
1. Impugning the order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).
3. Justification for denying information related to Income Tax Returns under personal information exemption.
4. Consideration of larger public interest for disclosure of personal information.
5. Compliance with procedures under Section 11 of the RTI Act for disclosure of personal information.

Issue 1: Impugning CIC's Order
The petitioner challenged the CIC's order directing the provision of information sought by the respondent regarding Sales Turnover Figure and Net Profit Figure of a company for specific financial years and its Income Tax Return. The CIC also called for justification under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for failing to provide the information within the prescribed time.

Issue 2: Denial of Information under Section 8(1)(j)
The petitioner initially denied the information, citing it as third-party and personal information exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The respondent appealed to the FAA and later to the CIC under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, leading to the impugned order for disclosure.

Issue 3: Justification for Denying Income Tax Returns
The petitioner contended that the denial was justified under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, referring to a Supreme Court decision where personal information, including income tax returns, was considered exempt unless larger public interest justified disclosure. The respondent alleged tax evasion by the company to argue for disclosure.

Issue 4: Consideration of Larger Public Interest
The court analyzed the conditions for disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, emphasizing that personal information can be disclosed if larger public interest justifies it. The court referenced previous judgments highlighting the conflict between freedom of information and personal privacy, emphasizing the need for a balance and mechanisms for disclosure based on public interest.

Issue 5: Compliance with Section 11 Procedures
The court noted that even if disclosure was justified by larger public interest, the Public Information Officer (PIO) should follow procedures under Section 11 of the RTI Act. The court found that no such notice was issued in this case, leading to the conclusion that the impugned order directing disclosure of personal information could not be sustained.

In conclusion, the court set aside the impugned order, emphasizing that mere suspicion of underreported income did not justify the disclosure of Income Tax Returns without following the prescribed procedures under the RTI Act.

---