TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (3) TMI 785
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "RTI Act") and hence could not be given. Elaborating further, the CPIO justified the grounds of applying Section (8) (1) (j) to the case of the appellant and said that the payment of tax by a person was his personal matter, disclosure whereof have had no relationship to any public activity or interest. The disclosure would also cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. The CPIO was, therefore, satisfied that no public interest would be served by such disclosure and hence rejected the request of the appellant. 3. The appellant came in first appeal before the Director General of Income Tax (Investment), Ahmedabad on 13.11.2006. In his appeal petition, the appellant submitted as under: (i) The authority did not apply his mind to the fact that the appellant has provided the information of a tax evader and relying upon the said information the authority has recovered the tax and the appellant is entitled to the information to know what amount of tax has been recovered from the evader. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has no personal interest in asking that information. (ii) Under the CBDT guidelines, the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant has stated that all information which can be given to Parliament can be given to him but the Chief Information Commissioner observed that the information requested for is in the nature of personal information, the disclosure of which may cause unwarranted invasion on privacy of the individual officer and held that Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act has been correctly applied. (ii) The information sought by the appellant is also covered under Section 138 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant has also not made a case of bonafide public interest for disclosures of the information but has merely said that he had been the informer for the search action and hence he needed the information to press for his claim of reward but the information sought is expressly disallowed as per Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act as is endorsed by the CIC by its decision in the case cited above. (iii) The plea of the appellant that identical information had been given to an applicant in another identical case was also considered. As the judicial or quasi judicial authority has to interpret the legal provisions independently and has to take a judicious decision in accordance with law, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ormation provided by the informant and not on the income assessed or detected. They also submitted that the appellant had already been paid the reward @ 10% on the taxes collected so far from the assessee. (iii) That appellant's claim of "discrimination" on the ground that the respondents had given such information in identical cases was factually and legally untenable. In this connection, the respondents submitted that the decision emanated out of the correct interpretation of the law. The law of jurisprudence holds that a wrong decision based on ignorance or incorrect interpretation of law would not be the basis for a claim of parity. The CPIO and the Appellate Authority both reiterated their decisions and prayed the Commission that the appellant's second appeal, not being based on any valid ground, be rejected. 8. In his reply to the notice of hearing dated 18.5.2007 issued by the Commission, the appellant submitted that he was about 70 years old had lost vision in one eye and was also not able to move independently, therefore, he cannot appear personally before the Commission. He was also not financially sound so as to depute some representative before the Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion seeking information concerning an assessee. The said sub-section empowers the Income Tax Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner to decide as to whether it is in public interest to provide information or not. It also provides that the decision of the Commissioner in this behalf would be final and shall not be called in question in any court of law. The provisions of Section 138(1) (b) are reproduced below: Section 138: (1)(b) Where a person makes an application to the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in the prescribed form for any information relating to any assessee 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. 14. The respondents have also submitted that the provisions of Section 138 of the Income Tax Act have also been given an overriding effect and the Sub-Section (2) of Section 138 reads as under: Notwithstanding anything ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is only effected where the provisions of the later enactment are so inconsistent with, or repugnant to, those of the earlier that the two cannot stand together2; unless the two Acts are so plainly repugnant to each other that effect cannot be given to both at the same time a repeal cannot be implied; and special Acts are not repealed by general Acts unless there be some express reference to the previous legislation, or a necessary inconsistency in the two Acts standing together, which prevents the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant (Emphasis supplied) from being applied. For where there aregeneral words in a later Act capable of reasonable application without being extended to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, then, in the absence of an indication of a particular intention to that effect, the presumption is that the general words were not intended to repeal the earlier and special legislation, or to take away a particular privilege of a particular class of persons." 38. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Apex Court also cited with approval an earlier decision in Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur v. Thakur Manmohan Dey - MANU/SC/0202/1966, in which i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der disclosure of such information if they are satisfied that the larger public interest justifies disclosure. This would imply that even a personal information which has some relationship to any public activity or interest may be liable to be disclosed. An invasion of privacy may also be held to be justified if the larger public interest so warrants. It is, therefore, necessary to analyze the ambit and scope of both the expressions "personal information" and "invasion of privacy". 19. In common parlance, the expression "personal information" is normally used for name, address, occupation, physical and mental status, including medical status, as for instance, whether a person is suffering from disease like diabetes, blood pressure, asthma, TB, Cancer etc. including the financial status of the person, as for instance, his income or assets and liabilities of self and other members of the family. The expression shall also be used with respect to one's hobbies like painting, music, sports etc. Most of these mentioned above are information personal to one and one may not like to share this with outsider. In this sense of the term, such information may be treated as confidential since....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lthough, not defined is, however, well recognized under the Indian legal system and it has all along been treated as a sacred right not to be violated unless there are good and sufficient reasons. Even under RTI, the normal rule should be of "non-disclosure of any information concerning one's 11 private life" and disclosure should be ordered only when there is overriding public interest and in that case too, the procedure laid down under section 11 of the Act should be followed as held by the Bombay High Court in the above cited case. 23. Because we have no specific law on the subject, in such cases we have been guided by the UK Data Protection Act 1998 Sec 2 of which titled Sensitive Personal Data reads as follows: In this Act "sensitive personal data" means personal data consisting of information as to: a) The racial or ethnic origin of the data subject b) His political opinions c) His religious beliefs or other beliefs of a similar nature d) Whether he is a member of a Trade Union e) His physical or mental health or condition f) His sexual life g) The commission or alleged commission by him of any offence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vity or interest and, under Section 8(1)(j), if that information be related to or originated in person, such information should qualify to be personal information under Section 8(1)(j). 27. In some of its earlier decisions, this Commission has held that information such as income tax returns and, other such details filed by a person with public authorities entrusted with such public tasks as tax determination, qualified to be personal information. The disclosure of this information was barred under the provisions of Section 8(i)(j) on grounds that this information was provided to the public authority in the discharge of the public duty of that public authority and unless the person providing such information, allowed the public authority to disclose the same, the secrecy of the information should be maintained. Unless proved that such information related to a public activity, it would be said to be "public information", and being "personal" should attract the bar under Section 8(i)(j). In stating this, Commission had kept in mind the incalculable and irretrievable harm that disclosure of this category of personal information could cause to the person providing the same. 28. I....