AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 1089
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 16.7.2015 whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss Special Civil Application No.7187 of 2014 filed by the Petitioner - Appellant Mr. Vinubhai Haribhai Patel (Malavia), Surat against the concerned authorities of the Income Tax Department under the Right to Information Act, 2005 ('the RTI Act' for short) and the private parties - Respondent Nos.4 to 8. 2. The learned Single Judge held that the 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 M/s. Tarunkumar Kantilal Raval and others 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. The Petitioner came before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by him that it was a fraud played by the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner, rather they were clearly exempted information under Section 8(1)(j). The contention of larger public interest justifying the disclosure does not exist. In disclosing the said information asked for by the petitioner relating to the private parties, there was no element of public interest to be sub­served. The information was personal information relating to third parties. The attendant facts and circumstances and the litigation between the petitioner and those parties, instead indicated that the information was personal information which was asked for by the petitioner for his own personal interest and private purpose. Respondent No.3­Central Information Commissioner was eminently justified in taking a view that there was no public interest present in the information claimed to be supplied, rightly denying the same by dismissing the appeal. 7. Lastly but importantly, dealing with the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the Central Information Commission was an unreasoned order, and therefore the same was required to be set aside, it was not possible to countenance the same. It is correct to view the impugned order as one no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the foregoing reasons and discussion, petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. Accordingly this petition stands dismissed summarily." 5. None has appeared on behalf of the private Respondents despite service and though we had directed Mr. Manish M. Bhatt, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department to put an appearance vide our order dated 6.1.2021, but none has appeared on behalf of the Income Tax Department also. Therefore, we have heard Mr. N.M. Kapadia, learned counsel for the Appellant - Petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the Appellant - Petitioner, 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 reasons are as follows. 7. The scheme of the RTI Act which was enacted for the avowed purpose to ensure greater and more effective transparency in public domain and to make Indian democracy more progressive, participative and meaningful has its own checks and balances in the said enactment. This Act has had operational life so far as for about 15 years and has enured to the benefit of many, while th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eign government; (g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; (h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; (i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed; (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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner] in the prescribed form for any information relating to any assessee 3 received or obtained by any income­ tax authority in the performance of his functions under this Act], the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner] may, if he is satisfied that it is in the public interest so to do, furnish or cause to be furnished the information asked for and his decision in this behalf shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court of law. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub­ section (1) or any other law for the time being in force, the Central Government may, having regard to the practices and usages customary or any other relevant factors, by order notified in the Official Gazette, direct that no information or document shall be furnished or produced by a public servant in respect of such matters relating to such class of assessees or except to such authorities as may be specified in the order." 11. The learned Single Judge also has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central information Commissioner and others [(2013) 1 SCC 212], wherein in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ished with relevant material which can override this confidentiality of the information and documents available with the Income Tax Department, but we fail to see even an iota of the public interest in this case. The tall claims made in the application about the alleged effort of the private Respondents to evade income tax under the garb of the claim of a status of their being agriculturists, particularly by a person who is admittedly in litigation over the same land in question with these Respondents, which is said to have been sold by them to the Petitioner as well as private Respondents. Therefore, 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. 15. As far as the concern shown by the A....