TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (3) TMI 785
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 appellant is entitled to a reward of 10% of the total amount recove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation 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, the findings given in another case by another officer on another petition cannot override the correct interpretation of the legal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Commission. He submitted that his case was very clear and he was entitled to the information about the assessment of tax. He submitted that he had already discussed his case before the lower authorit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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 p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 it was indicated that an earlier special law cannot be held to have been abrogated by mere implication. That being so, the argument regarding implied repeal has to be rejected for both the reasons set out above. 16. The denial of information in this case by the CPIO has been mainly on the ground that the disclosure o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 one would not like to share it with any other person. However, there are circumstances when it becomes necessary to disclose some of this information if it is in larger public interest. Thus, for example, if there is a doubt about the integrity of any person occupying a public office, it may become necessary to know about one's financial status and the details....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....blic 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 h) Any proceedings for any offence committed or alleged to have been committed by him, the disposal of such proceedings or the sentence of any court in such proceedings. If we were to construe privacy to mean protection of personal data, this would be a suitable reference point to help define the concept. In this context, as may be seen the information sought by appellant may fall within the definition of personal data as desc....