2021 (1) TMI 1089 - HC - Income Tax

Court Upholds Decision on RTI Request Exemption

VINUBHAI HARIBHAI PATEL (MALAVIA) Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & 7 OTHERS

The High Court upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the appeal. The Court reiterated that the information sought by the Petitioner ... RTI Application seeking information against Private Parties - Allegation of tax evasion - Public interest - Single Judge held that Petitioner is not entitled to get the information in the form of his Income Tax Returns, Status of Agriculturists, disclosure as Business Income or not etc. and from the concerned Authorities of the Income Tax Department under provisions of the RTI Act with respect to private Respondent with whom the present Petitioner has some litigation with regard to the land in question, which the Petitioner claims to have purchased and was again sold by the same Seller in favour of private Respondents also who claimed to be the Agriculturists under a Will - HELD THAT:- We are satisfied that the order of the learned Single Judge does not require any interference in the present intra­Court appeal and the same being without merit deserves to be dismissed. The Applicant - Petitioner in the present case firstly sought to emphasise that Section 6(2) of the RTI Act does not require any reasons to be given in the Application requesting for the information except those that may be available with him and necessary for contacting him. This, in the submission of the learned counsel for the Applicant - Petitioner, gives a larger latitude and platform to the Applicant under the said Act. The procedure for disposal of such request and application provided in Section 7 of the RTI Act, while the other provisions of remedial nature for further appeal, etc. are contained in Chapter 5 containing Sections 18 to 20 of the RTI Act. The overriding factor which enables such information to be disclosed notwithstanding the exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act appears to be larger public interest in such disclosure of information. The tenor of the application filed by the Applicant shows it is in the nature of a complaint against the private Respondents to the Income Tax Department, rather than any bona fide public interest sought to be served by the disclosure of such information about the status of the private Respondents as agriculturists or not, whether their right to get such status by way of a Will executed by a Testator is sustainable in law or not, etc. Such personal or private information about the Assessees under the Income Tax Act are only meant to be dealt with, investigated, inquired or contested by the Assessees concerned before the Income Tax Authorities and they are not the 'information' in public domain to be made available to any third party The only interest of the Petitioner who has been fighting against these private Respondents at all possible forums including the RTI Act and criminal complaints appears to be the only private interest and the name of a public interest is just a ruse or excuse given to the public authorities calling upon them to disclose such 'information' to the Petitioner - Applicant. The provisions of the RTI Act are not meant to allow the parties to collect evidence from such Departments or Public Authorities to sub­serve their private interest The sanctity of the Income Tax Assessment, filing of Returns, investigation and inquiry under the Act would be thrown open to third parties, if such 'information' was to be disclosed to third parties casually or carelessly. On the other hand, the Act provides for keeping such information guarded in confidence with the Authorities. Therefore, the bar under Section 138 of the RTI Act as well as the exemption against such disclosure contained in Section 8 of the RTI Act, more particularly under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, completely seals the fate of the Applicant - Petitioner in the present case. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, was absolutely correct and justified in dismissing the writ petition at the threshold. Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to information under the RTI Act.2. Applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.3. Public interest versus private interest.4. Validity of the Central Information Commission's order.5. Disclosure of information under Section 138 of the Income Tax Act.6. Larger public interest and its implications.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Information under the RTI Act:The Letters Patent Appeal was directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, who dismissed the Special Civil Application filed by the Petitioner seeking information from the Income Tax Department and private parties under the RTI Act. The Petitioner sought details such as Income Tax Returns and the status of the private Respondents as Agriculturists, claiming it was in the larger public interest.2. Applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act:The learned Single Judge held that the information requested by the Petitioner fell within the scope of 'personal information' under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Judge emphasized that the information related to Income Tax Returns and the status of the private Respondents, which was personal and exempted from disclosure unless larger public interest justified it. The contention that the information was necessary to expose fraud was dismissed, as it did not meet the criteria of larger public interest.3. Public Interest Versus Private Interest:The Petitioner argued that the information was in the larger public interest, as it would expose tax evasion by the private Respondents. However, the learned Single Judge concluded that the Petitioner's interest was primarily personal, related to ongoing litigation over land. The Judge noted that the RTI Act is not meant to serve private interests or to gather evidence for personal litigation.4. Validity of the Central Information Commission's Order:The Petitioner contended that the order by the Central Information Commission was unreasoned and cryptic. The learned Single Judge disagreed, stating that even a one-line reason could suffice if it addressed the issue. The order referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, which supported the exemption of personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.5. Disclosure of Information under Section 138 of the Income Tax Act:The Court referred to Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, which governs the disclosure of information about assessees. This section allows disclosure only if it serves the public interest. The learned Single Judge noted that the Income Tax Department has sufficient mechanisms to investigate tax evasion without disclosing personal information to third parties.6. Larger Public Interest and Its Implications:The overriding factor for disclosing exempted information under the RTI Act is larger public interest. The Court observed that the term 'public interest' should not be used loosely to serve private purposes. In this case, the Petitioner failed to establish any larger public interest that would justify the disclosure of personal information. The Court emphasized that the RTI Act is not a tool for private litigation or for gathering evidence against opponents.Conclusion:The High Court upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the appeal. The Court reiterated that the information sought by the Petitioner was personal and exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, and there was no larger public interest to justify its disclosure. The Court also affirmed that the provisions of the Income Tax Act protect the confidentiality of assessees' information, and any disclosure must be justified by public interest, which was not evident in this case. The appeal was dismissed, and all connected Civil Applications were disposed of accordingly.