TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as seized of an application dated 07.08.2017 submitted by Respondent No. 1 under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, "the RTI Act"). Respondent No. 1, who is the wife of Sri Zafar Ali Asar Ali Ansari, sought disclosure of certain information relating to her husband. The information requested pertained to the Assessment Years 2012-2017 and included copies of his Income Tax Returns, details of tax paid, and the name and address of the bank(s) connected with his financial records. 3. Upon consideration of the request, the Petitioner, by order dated 31.08.2017, rejected the application invoking Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The rejection was premised on the ground that the information sought constituted third-party information held by the Income Tax Department in a fiduciary capacity and was therefore exempt from disclosure. It is stated that notice under Section 11 of the RTI Act was issued to the concerned third party, namely Sri Zafar Ali Asar Ali Ansari. However, no response was received from him within the prescribed period. 4. Aggrieved by the rejection, Respondent No. 1 preferred a statutory appeal dated 07.09.2017 before the Joint Commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....information. 6.3. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench in Adarsh vs. The State of Maharashtra WP.No. 11135/2025 dated 11135/2025, more particularly, paras 10, 11, 12 and 14 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: "10. This Court has dealt with the issue of applicability of Section 8 and 11 of the RTI Act by analysing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India V/s. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (supra) and the Court has explained that the RTI Act operationalise the disclosure of information held by public authorities to reduce the asymmetry of information between individual citizens and the State apparatus. However, the Constitution Bench has observed that enacting the RTI Act the Parliament was cognizant that an unrestricted disclosure of information could be fiscally inefficient, result and would do real-world harms and infringe the rights of others. Thus, the Constitution Bench while quoting the provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act explained the non-obstante phrase carved exceptions under Section 8 to the general obligation to disclose information....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n i.e. GST returns of the third party. When such an information is asked the Authorities constituted has to issue under Section 11 to the effected person as this provision is held to be mandatory. As such, the first objection of the Petitioner that no notice ought to have been given to the Industries whose GST returns were asked by applicant is rejected. 11. The next issue is whether Section 158 of the GST Act would also be an impediment in providing information under the RTI Act. Section 158 (1) of the GST Act provides that the Information of the GST cannot be provided to third parties. For ready reference, Section 158 of GST Act is as below: "Section 158. Disclosure of Information by a public servant.- (1) All particulars contained in any statement made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced in accordance with this Act, or in any record of evidence given in the course of any proceedings under this Act (other than proceedings before a criminal court), or in any record of any proceedings under this Act shall, save as provided in sub-section (3), not be disclosed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., a practising company secretary to the authority empowered to take disciplinary action against the members practising the profession of a legal practitioner, a cost accountant, a chartered accountant or a company secretary, as the case may be; or (j) any particulars to any agency appointed for the purposes of data entry on any automated system or for the purpose of operating, upgrading or maintaining any automated system where such agency is contractually bound not to use or disclose such particulars except for the aforesaid purposes; or (k) any particulars to an officer of the Government as may be necessary for the purposes of any other law for the time being in force; or (l) any information relating to any class of taxable persons or class of transactions for publication, if, in the opinion of the Commissioner, it is desirable in the public interest, to publish such information." 12. Section 158 (1) of the GST Act specifically prohibits giving Information of GST returns except as provided in sub-section 3, so also Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act prohibits information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....demonstrable showing of larger public interest. In cases involving third-party information treated as confidential, the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act is mandatory, and the objections of the third party must be duly considered before any disclosure is ordered. 6.6. The Petitioner further submits that the reasoning adopted in Adarsh is apposite to the present case. Just as GST returns were held to be protected from disclosure in the absence of a larger public interest, income tax returns and related financial particulars of an assessee are similarly confidential in nature. Such information is statutorily protected, and its disclosure, absent compelling public interest, would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The mere assertion of grievance or personal necessity does not elevate the matter to one of larger public interest. 6.7. On the strength of Adarsh, it is urged that the object of the RTI Act is not to enable indiscriminate access to personal financial information, but to promote transparency in public functioning. Disclosure of private tax information between estranged spouses, it is contended, falls outside the purview of the Act's transparency mand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....blic Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal 2020 (5) SCC 481, more particularly, paras 235, 251 and 293 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 235. The appellant argued that the information about the assets of Judges is exempt from disclosure, by virtue of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act which casts a fiduciary duty on the Chief Justice of India to hold the asset declarations in confidence. It is argued by the respondent that Judges, while declaring their assets, do so in their official capacity in accordance with the 1997 Resolution and not as private individuals. It is urged that the process of information gathering about the assets of the Judges by the Chief Justice of India, is in his official capacity and therefore, no fiduciary relationship exists between them. 251. The third referral question to be answered by this Court is: "Whether the information sought for is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act." The question requires this Court to determine whether and under what circumstances the information sought by the applicant should be disclosed under the provisions of the RTI Act. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not to be mechanically disregarded and that disclosure of personal information must be tested against privacy concerns and the requirement of a larger public interest. 6.15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the democratic justification for transparency in respect of elected representatives stems from the need for public accountability in a representative system. However, in the case of Judges, who do not stand in a direct agency relationship with the electorate, the "public interest" in disclosure cannot be equated with democratic accountability in the electoral sense. 6.16. On the strength of the aforesaid observations, learned counsel submits that the relationship between the Income Tax Department and an assessee is analogous, for the present purpose, to a fiduciary relationship. Just as asset declarations made by Judges were argued to be held in confidence, the income tax returns and financial particulars furnished by an assessee are submitted to the Department under statutory compulsion with an expectation of confidentiality. It is his submission that if not for the statutory compulsion, such information and finer details would not have been provided by the Assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in full measure. Consequently, it is contended that no disclosure to Respondent No. 1 is warranted under the RTI Act. 6.22. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others (2011) 8 SCC 497, more particularly, paras 12, 20 and 66 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 12. To consider these questions, it is necessary to refer to the Statement of Objects and Reasons, the Preamble and the relevant provisions of the RTI Act. The RTI Act was enacted in order to ensure smoother, greater and more effective access to information and provide an effective framework for effectuating the right to information recognised under Article 19 of the Constitution. The Preamble to the Act declares the object sought to be achieved by the RTI Act thus: "An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Inf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of Governments, etc.)." 6.23. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further places reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aditya Bandopadhyay, and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while analysing the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the Preamble of the RTI Act, emphasised that the Act was enacted to promote transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and to secure access to information in order to strengthen democratic governance. However, the Court also recognised that disclosure of information may conflict with other public interests, including preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information, efficient functioning of the Government, and fiduciary relationships. 6.24. Learned counsel submits that the right to know, though flowing from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, is not absolute. It is circumscribed by legitimate considerations of secrecy where warranted, particularly when the information sought does not pertain to public acts or public transactions c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the machinery of the RTI Act cannot be invoked to secure disclosure of private tax information. The statutory exemptions under Section 8, particularly those protecting fiduciary relationships and personal privacy, would therefore operate as a bar to disclosure. 6.31. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Cen. Information Commr. & Ors. SLP(C) No. 27734/2012, more particularly, paras 13 and 14 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the Petitioner ie copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mains exempt from disclosure. Therefore, it is submitted that the direction issued by the Central Information Commission is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande. 6.36. He relies upon the decision in Shailesh Gandhi Vs. Central Information Commission (2015) 58 Taxmann.Com 147 (Bombay), more particularly, para 25 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: "25. In my view therefore, the proviso cannot be sought to be interpreted in the manner which the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks to do. There is also a basic fallacy in the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner wants to proceed on the hypothesis that the information sought by him cannot be denied to the Parliament. In so far as the Parliament is concerned, the Parliament has its own rules of business and it therefore cannot be presumed that the information in respect of the Income Tax Returns of a Member of Legislature would be sought. The same would undoubtedly be in the discretion of the Honourable Speaker. In the said context, it is also relevant to refer to Section 75A of the Representation of the People Act under w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: "19. The issue raised herein has been settled by a Bench of three Member Bench of the CIC which, in the opinion of this Court, is binding on the Bench which has passed the impugned order. A Bench of three Commissioners of the CIC in G.R. Rawal v. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), 2008 SCC OnLine CIC 1008, while considering the very same issue has observed as under: "15. Thus, both the Right to Information Act, 2005 and Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deal with disclosure of information. While Right to Information Act is a general law concerning the disclosure of information by the public authorities, Section 138 of the Income Tax Act is a special legislation dealing with disclosure of information concerning the assesses. This Commission in "Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. ITAT, decided on 18th September, 2007 decided by a Full Bench, has dealt with the issue of applicability of special law to the exclusion of the general law. The Commission has relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in "Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla - AIR 2002 SC 2322". The following two paragraph....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- 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." Propriety demanded that the CIC ought to have followed the opinion of the larger Bench, which is binding on it." 6.41. By relying on Girish Mittal, he submits that in that case reliance was placed on the earlier three-Member Bench decision of the Central Information Commission in G.R. Rawal v. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation). 6.42. It is submitted that in the said decisions, the interplay between the Right to Information Act, 2005 and Section 138 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was specifically considered. The reasoning adopted therein proceeds on the principle that while the RTI Act is a general enactment governing access to information held by public authorities, Section 138 of the Income-tax Act is a special statutory provision dealing specifically with disclosure of information relating to assessees. 6.43. Relying upon the well-established maxim generalia specialibus non derogant, it is contended that a later g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, the order dated 12.04.2019 passed by the Central Information Commission is liable to be set aside, and the RTI application filed by Respondent No. 1 deserves to be rejected. 7. Sri Kemparaju, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1, submits that: 7.1. Respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of Sri Zafar Ali S/o Asar Ali. In that view of the matter, it is contended that the husband cannot be treated as a "third party" vis-à-vis his wife in a strict or adversarial sense, or vice versa, particularly when the information sought pertains to issues directly impacting her legal rights. The relationship between the parties, being matrimonial, carries with it reciprocal obligations, including financial disclosure in appropriate proceedings. 7.2. Respondent No. 1 had instituted proceedings under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the said proceedings, it was specifically pleaded that the husband was carrying on business in Bengaluru under the name S.A. Trading Company, engaged in the sale and purchase of sewing machines. Though the husband is stated to have indicated that he could produce income tax returns pertaining to his busi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the peculiar facts and the nature of the request, allowed the appeal and directed disclosure. It is therefore contended that the order of the Central Information Commission is reasoned, justified, and does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7.9. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Rajendra Vasantlal Shah Vs. Central Information Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors AIR 2011 Gujarat 70. more particularly, paras 8.2 and 8.4 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: "8.2 Accounts of respondent No.4, being a Religious Charitable Trust, is statutorily audited, whose administration is subject to certain controls by the Charity Commissioner Information Commissioner, under the Bombay Public Trust Act. Its action of filing income-tax returns with the In-come Tax Department cannot be, in the con-text of the RTI. 'Act, viewed as a fiduciary relationship. No contrary interpretation can be given to defeat the object of the act, rendering lack of transparency in functioning of public and religious charitable trusts which carry considerable importance in their functioning, which touch greater portion of the po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Where the information sought bears relevance to the enforcement of legal rights and involves elements of public interest or statutory obligations, disclosure may be warranted. Learned counsel submits that the Central Information Commission, having considered these principles, rightly directed disclosure in the present case. 7.14. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Kusum Sharma Vs. Mahinder Kumar Sharma FAO 369/1996 dated 14.01.2015., more particularly, para 16 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: "16. In Puneet Kaur v. Inderjit Singh Sawhney (supra), this Court, while dealing with Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, directed both the parties to file detailed affidavits of their assets, income and expenditure. The relevant portion of the said judgment is held as under: 7. ...both the parties are directed to file their respective affidavits of assets, income and expenditure from the date of the marriage up to this date containing the following particulars:-- 7.1 Personal Information (i) Educational qualifications. (ii) Professional qualifications. (iii) Present occupation. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... (t) Other investments not covered by above items. (iv) Any other assets not covered above. 7.4 Liabilities (i) OD, CC, Term Loan from bank and other institutions. (ii) Personal/business loan (a) Secured. (b) Unsecured. (iii) Home loan. (iv) Income Tax, Wealth Tax and Property Tax. 7.5 Expenditure (i) Rent and maintenance including electricity, water and gas. (ii) Lease rental, if any asset taken on hire. (iii) Installment of any house loan, car loan, personal loan, business loan, etc. (iv) Interest to bank or others. (v) Education of children including tuition fee. (vi) Conveyance including fuel, repair and maintenance of vehicle. Also give the average distance travelled every day. (vii) Premium of LIC, Medi-claim, house and vehicle policy. (viii) Premium of ULIP, Mutual Fund. (ix) Contribution to PPF, EPF, approved superannuation fund. (x) Mobile/landline phone bills. (xi) Club subscription and usage, subscription to news papers, periodicals, magazines, etc. (xii) Internet charges/cab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ets, income and expenditure from the date of the marriage up to this date and more particularly the following:-- (i) Relevant documents with respect to income including Salary certificate, Form 16A, Income Tax Returns, certificate from the employer regarding cost to the company, balance sheet, etc. (ii) Audited accounts, if deponent is running business and otherwise, non-audited accounts i.e. balance sheets, profit and loss account and capital account. (iii) Statement of all bank accounts. (iv) Statement of Demat accounts. (v) Passport. (vi) Credit cards. (vii) Club membership cards. (viii) Frequent Flyer cards. (ix) PAN card. (x) Applications seeking job, in case of unemployed person. 9. The affidavit and documents be filed within a period of four weeks with an advance copy to opposite parties who shall file their response within two weeks thereafter. 11. Both the parties are directed to remain present in Court on the next date of hearing along with all original documents relating to their assets, income and expenditure." 7.15. By relying on Kusum Sharma's case, his s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entral Information Commission in Neena Bhatnagar Mani Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax S.A. No. CIC/CCITB/A/2018/106268-BJ dated 18.6.2019, more particularly, the extracts as under. "The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the desired information was not provided, till date, despite the fact that she was the legally wedded wife of the Third Party. While referring to the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of MP in the matter of Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Pawan Kumar Jain and others W.A. No. 168/2015 and Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others W.A. No. 170/2015 dated 15.05.2018, the Appellant submitted that the legal position as enunciated in the said judgement would prevail over the decision of stay of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 18778/2017 (GM-RES) since the decision of High Court of Karnataka was binding only on the parties contesting the matter therein. In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA as also their written submission and contended that a similar matter decided by the Commission was challenged by them before the High Court of Karnataka in Writ ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18, decisions of the Commission in CIC/BS/A/2015/002182-BJ dated 11.05.2017 and CIC/BS/A/2015/002040-BJ dated 20.04.2017 and CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/175772 in support of her contention. Thus, while stating that since December, 2014 her husband had used one ploy or another to not pay her maintenance due to her under law and that arrears on the Court Order exceeded Rs. 15 lakhs, the Appellant prayed to set aside the order of the CPIO/ FAA (Jt. Commissioner) and direct the CPIO/ SPIO to provide her the information without further delay." 7.21. By relying on Neena Bhatnagar Mani's case, his submission is that in the said case, the Commission was dealing with a similar situation where the legally wedded wife had sought disclosure of the income tax returns of her husband for the purpose of enforcing her claim for maintenance. The applicant therein had contended that despite subsisting matrimonial obligations and court orders, the husband had refused to maintain her, asserting lack of income, while withholding authentic financial particulars. 7.22. The Commission, in that context, considered the plea that maintenance is not merely a statutory entitlement but forms an integral component of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usband and wife and as a wife she is entitled to know what remuneration the respondent No. 1 is getting. Present case is distinguishable from the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) and therefore the law laid down by their Lordships in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) are not applicable in the present case. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No. 341/2008. Similarly, the W.A. No. 170/2015 is also allowed and the impugned order passed in W.P. No. 1647/2008 is set aside." 7.27. By relying on Sunita Jain's case, he submits that in the said case, the issue concerned the disclosure of the monthly remuneration of a husband employed with a public authority. The Ho'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that while considering the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the marital relationship between the parties could not be ignored. The Court held that a wife is entitled to know the remuneration earned by her husband, especially when such information is relevant for enforcement of her legal rights. 7.28. The High Court further distinguished the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....butions made to Provident Fund etc. It is here that the information contained in the salary slips would make the salary slips as having the characteristic of personal nature. Any information which discloses, as for example, remittances made to the Income Tax Department towards discharge of tax liability or to the Bank towards discharge of loan liability would constitute the personal information and would encroach upon the privacy of the person. Therefore, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra), such an information could not be disclosed under the provisions of the RI Act. This is all the more so when the information seeker is a person who is totally stranger in blood or marital relationship to the person whose information he wants to lay his hands on. It would have been a different matter, had the information been sought by the wife of the Petitioner in order to support her contention in a litigation, which she has filed against her husband. In a litigation, wherein the issue involved is of maintenance of wife, the information relating to salary details no longer remains confined to the category of personal information of the husban....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....easy reference: "2. We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether the Central Information Commissioner (for short 'the CIC') acting under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'the RTI Act') was right in denying information regarding the third respondent's personal matters pertaining to his service career and also denying the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties on the ground that the information sought for was qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. 13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the Petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess. Learned counsel submits that the Central Information Commission appreciated this dimension and that no error can be attributed to its decision directing disclosure. 7.41. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Others SLP No. 34868/2009, more particularly, para 6 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: "6. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides: "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force." This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1, by adverting to the definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, submits that the expression is of wide amplitude. It encompasses any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices and the like, and also extends to information relating to a private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force. 7.47. On that basis, it is contended that although the husband of Respondent No. 1 is a private individual and not a public authority, the income tax returns and related financial records pertaining to him are in the lawful custody of the Income Tax Department. The Department, being a public authority within the meaning of the RTI Act, has statutory access and control over such material. 7.48. Learned counsel therefore submits that once such information is held by, or accessible to, a public authority, it falls within the sweep of Section 2(f) and becomes amenable to a request under the RTI Act, subject of course to the statutory exemptions. The fact that the information concerns a private individual does not, by itself, place it beyond th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of the Department that income tax returns or related records can never be produced. 8.2. The objection, according to him, is only to the mode by which such information is sought to be obtained. Learned counsel submits that confidential tax information cannot be furnished merely on the basis of an RTI application filed by the spouse of the assessee. The statutory framework governing income tax records contemplates regulated disclosure and vests discretion in specified authorities or in courts of competent jurisdiction. It is contended that if a competent court, in the course of maintenance, matrimonial proceedings or the like, considers it necessary to summon the income tax returns of the husband, the Department would be bound to comply with such judicial direction. In that scenario, the court would exercise its discretion, evaluate relevance and necessity, and pass appropriate orders for the production of documents. 8.3. Therefore, the submission is that the proper course for Respondent No. 1 is to invoke the procedural mechanisms available before the concerned court for summoning documents, rather than resorting to the RTI Act. According to learned counsel, permitti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y under Section 8(1)(e) of the said Act? 12.1. Sri Y.V. Raviraj, learned counsel for the Petitioner, contends that the information sought by Respondent No. 1, namely the income tax returns, assessment particulars and financial disclosures of the assessee, squarely falls within the protective ambit of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is submitted that such material constitutes personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The right to information, though recognised under the RTI Act, is not absolute and must be balanced against the constitutional right to privacy. Section 8(1)(j) embodies this legislative balance by carving out an exemption where personal information is sought without a demonstrable larger public interest. 12.2. Learned counsel further submits that the Income Tax Department holds the income tax returns and financial particulars of an assessee in a fiduciary capacity. Just as asset declarations made by Judges were argued in Subhash Chandra Agarwal's case to be held in confidence by the Chief Justice of India, the inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... protected from disclosure in the absence of a larger public interest. 12.8. Sri Kemparaju, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1, submits that the concept of fiduciary relationship cannot be expansively interpreted so as to shield all income tax returns from disclosure under the RTI Act. The mere fact that a return is filed with the Income Tax Department does not, by itself, create a blanket fiduciary protection. 12.9. In support of this contention, learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Rajendra Vasantlal Shah, wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that filing of income tax returns by a public/charitable trust, which was subject to statutory regulation, could not be treated as constituting a fiduciary relationship so as to defeat the object of the RTI Act. The Court held that disclosure of income tax returns was connected with public interest and transparency in public functioning. 12.10. Learned counsel further relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khanapuram Gandaiah, to submit that income tax returns are existing records held by a public authority in material form and fall within the statutory ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion" under Section 8(1)(j), the position stands authoritatively settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande in paragraph 14 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held: "14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are personal information which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (i) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information." 12.17. This pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all courts and tribunals in India and admits of no ambiguity. Income tax returns, by their very nature, contain intimate details of an individual's financial affairs, sources of income, deductions claimed, investments made, and tax liabilities discharged. Such information is quintessentially personal in character. The filing of such returns is a statutory compulsion under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the assessee furnishes such details with a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 12.21. The decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, in Adarsh, is also relevant. The Court examined the scope and interplay of Sections 8 and 11 of the RTI Act and held that where personal information is sought, the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act is mandatory. In respect of GST returns, which are analogous to income tax returns, the Court held that the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) operates as a bar to disclosure in the absence of a larger public interest. The Court specifically noted that Section 158(1) of the GST Act prohibits giving information of GST returns except as provided in sub-section (3). 12.22. Turning now to Section 8(1)(e) and the question of fiduciary relationship, the concept of "fiduciary relationship" under the RTI Act has been the subject of considerable judicial analysis. The expression, in the context of Section 8(1)(e), has been interpreted to mean a relationship founded on trust and confidence, wherein one party holds information on behalf of another with an obligation of confidentiality. 12.23. In Subhash Chandra Agarwal's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined whether the Chief Justice of India held....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "personal information" within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This is the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande and this Court is bound by the same. The fact that such information is personal in nature does not, however, mean that it can never be disclosed. The exemption under Section 8(1)(j) is qualified by the condition that disclosure may be ordered where the competent authority is satisfied that a larger public interest warrants it. The question whether such a larger public interest exists in the present case is dealt with under Point (iii) below. 12.27. I answer point No. (i) by holding that the Income tax returns, assessment particulars and related financial details of an assessee do constitute "personal information" within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as authoritatively held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande. The exemption, however, is qualified and not absolute; it may be overridden where a larger public interest warrants disclosure. As regards Section 8(1)(e), while the relationship between the Income Tax Department and an individu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt observed that in considering the exemption under Section 8(1)(j), the matrimonial relationship between the parties could not be ignored. The Court held that a wife is entitled to know the remuneration earned by her husband and distinguished the decision in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande on the ground that the facts were materially different in a matrimonial context. 13.5. I have considered the rival submissions with care. At the outset, it is necessary to extract the statutory definition of "third party" under the RTI Act. Section 2(n) reads as follows: "2(n) 'third party' means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority;" 13.6. The statutory definition is plain and unambiguous. A "third party" means any person other than the citizen making the request. The definition does not carve out any exception for spouses, family members, or persons standing in any particular relationship with the applicant. The language is comprehensive and admits of no qualification based on personal or familial relationship. 13.7. In the present case, the RTI application was filed by Respondent No. 1, namely Smt. Gulsanober ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....file affidavits of assets and income. The directions issued therein were in the exercise of the court's jurisdiction in matrimonial proceedings, not in the context of an RTI application. The judgment recognises the duty of spouses to disclose financial information in matrimonial proceedings, but it does not deal with the question, whether a spouse ceases to be a "third party" under the RTI Act. 13.13. Similarly, the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Sunita Jain, while recognising the entitlement of a wife to know the remuneration of her husband, distinguished Girish Ramchandra Deshpande on the facts. The said decision did not hold that a spouse is not a "third party" under Section 2(n). Rather, it held that the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) must be applied contextually and that in a matrimonial context, the balance may tilt in favour of disclosure. This is a separate question from the definitional one under consideration. 13.14. I answer Point No.(ii) by holding that the husband of Respondent No. 1 does qualify as a "third party" within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the RTI Act. The statutory definition is unambiguous and does not admit of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s submitted that Respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife who has instituted proceedings under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The husband, despite carrying on business, has neither disclosed his turnover nor produced relevant income tax returns. The Courts below have rejected her claim for enhanced maintenance on the ground that no documentary evidence of the husband's income was produced. Thus, denial of the information would effectively defeat her statutory right to seek appropriate maintenance. 14.5. Learned counsel submits that maintenance is not merely a legal right but forms an integral component of the right to live with dignity. Where a deserted wife is deprived of financial support and is unable to substantiate her claim due to non-disclosure of income details by the husband, the balance must tilt in favour of disclosure, as the information becomes intrinsically connected with her right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. 14.6. In support of this submission, learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Central Information Commission in Neena Bhatnagar Mani, wherein the Commission was dealing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had filed proceedings under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the said proceedings, her claim for maintenance at Rs. 75,000/- per month was rejected and she was awarded only Rs. 7,000/- per month, principally because there was no specific evidence regarding the earnings of the husband. The appellate court in Criminal Appeal No. 303/2017 also declined enhancement on the same ground. Even this modest amount was not regularly paid, resulting in issuance of recovery-cum-arrest warrants. 14.12. The question, therefore, is whether the need to secure just maintenance for a deserted wife constitutes "larger public interest" within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j). 14.13. This Court recognises that the obligation to maintain a spouse is not merely a private obligation. It is a statutory obligation recognised under multiple enactments, including Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and corresponding provisions under personal laws. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsively interpreted as to encompass every private dispute, however genuine or sympathetic the case of the applicant may be. There is a distinction between a matter of public interest and a matter of individual interest, howsoever legitimate. The RTI Act is a legislation designed to promote transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities. It is not a substitute for discovery or production of documents in civil or criminal proceedings. The mechanisms for securing production of documents in pending proceedings are well established in procedural law. 14.20. In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Petitioner "cannot claim those details as a matter of right." While the Court recognised the discretion of the Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority to order disclosure where larger public interest justifies it, the Court did not hold that maintenance disputes automatically satisfy the larger public interest test. 14.21. In Subhash Chandra Agarwal's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 293 made a nuanced observation about the nature of "public interest", noting that in different contexts, the justifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not, by itself, satisfy the statutory test of "larger public interest" under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act so as to override the exemption protecting personal information. The expression "larger public interest" postulates an interest that extends beyond the individual dispute. An individual maintenance dispute, however meritorious, primarily remains a private matter between the spouses. The Central Information Commission erred in not applying the larger public interest test to the facts of the case. However, this finding does not leave Respondent No. 1 without remedy, as the appropriate mechanism for obtaining such information is through the competent court in the pending maintenance proceedings. 15. Answer to Point No. (iv): Whether Section 138 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, being a special provision governing disclosure of assessee information, restricts or regulates disclosure under the RTI Act, and how it is to be harmoniously construed with Section 22 of the RTI Act? 15.1. Sri Y.V. Raviraj, learned counsel for the Petitioner, contends that Section 138 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is a special statutory provision dealing specifically with disclosure of information relati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer, authority or body performing functions under any other law as the Central Government may, if in its opinion it is necessary so to do in the public interest, specify by notification in the Official Gazette in this behalf, any such information received or obtained by any income-tax authority in the performance of his functions under this Act], as may, in the opinion of the Board or other income-tax authority, be necessary for the purpose of enabling the officer, authority or body to perform his or its functions under that law. (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. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or any other law for the time being in force, the Cent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....closure. The exemptions under Section 8, particularly clauses (e) and (j), already provide sufficient protection for income tax information. Therefore, there is no irreconcilable conflict between Section 22 of the RTI Act and Section 138 of the Income-tax Act. The RTI Act applies to information held by the Income Tax Department, but the exemptions under Section 8 provide the necessary safeguards against unwarranted disclosure. Section 138 of the Income-tax Act provides an additional layer of regulation governing disclosure of assessee information through specified channels. 15.11. In other words, an RTI application seeking income tax returns is not barred by Section 138 of the Income-tax Act per se, as Section 22 of the RTI Act would override to that extent. However, the information sought is protected by the exemptions under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, and disclosure can only be ordered upon satisfaction of the larger public interest test. The practical effect of Section 138 is that it reinforces the confidential character of assessee information and supports the conclusion that such information is ordinarily exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j). 15.12. I answer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me Tax Department, and denial of such information would effectively defeat her statutory right to seek appropriate maintenance. 16.3. It is submitted that an application was filed before the concerned Magistrate seeking a direction to the husband to produce his income tax returns, but in the final adjudication, the said aspect was not effectively addressed. The court, observing that there was no specific evidence regarding the earnings of the husband, rejected the claim for enhanced maintenance and awarded only Rs. 7,000/- per month. In such circumstances, it is contended that the RTI Act provides the only viable statutory mechanism through which she can access certified records already available with the Income Tax Department. 16.4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions on this pivotal point. This point goes to the heart of the dispute. The question is not merely whether the information can be disclosed, but what is the appropriate legal mechanism for obtaining it. 16.5. It is well settled that in proceedings relating to maintenance, whether under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... does not permit such nuanced balancing. 16.7.3. Third, the courts adjudicating maintenance claims have comprehensive powers to compel disclosure. Under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), a court may issue a summons to produce a document or thing. Under Order XVI Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court may summon any person to produce documents. Under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 168 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), the court has the power to put questions and order the production of documents. These provisions vest ample authority in the court to compel the Income Tax Department to produce the returns of an assessee. 16.7.4. Fourth, when a court issues a summons or direction to the Income Tax Department to produce the income tax returns of an assessee, the Department is bound to comply. The submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner in rejoinder that the Department would comply with a judicial direction is noted and accepted. This is also consistent with Section 138 of the Income-tax Act, which permits disclosure of assessee informatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o produce the income tax returns and related financial records of her husband. Any such application, if made, shall be considered on its own merits by the concerned court. 16.10. I answer Point No.(v) by holding that the appropriate course for Respondent No. 1 was to seek production of the income tax returns through the competent matrimonial court, rather than by invoking the provisions of the RTI Act. The RTI Act is not the appropriate mechanism for obtaining income tax returns of a spouse in the context of maintenance proceedings. The courts adjudicating maintenance claims have ample powers to summon documents and compel disclosure of financial information, and the procedural safeguards available in judicial proceedings are far more appropriate than the relatively blunt instrument of an RTI application. However, Respondent No. 1 is at liberty to approach the competent court in the pending maintenance proceedings to seek a direction to the Income Tax Department to produce the income tax returns and related financial records of her husband. 17. Answer to Point No. (vi): Whether the order dated 12.04.2019 passed by the Central Information Commission directing disclosure of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the Commission appears to have directed disclosure by placing reliance upon an earlier order passed in WP No. 18778/2017 (Smt. Jammalu Padma Manjari v. CPIO and DCIT) without undertaking an independent analysis of the facts of the present case. Reliance on an earlier order, without applying the mind to the specific circumstances of the case at hand, does not constitute a reasoned decision. 17.5.2. Second, the Commission failed to apply the larger public interest test mandated by Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The exemption under Section 8(1)(j) is qualified by the condition that disclosure may be ordered only where the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants it. This satisfaction must be recorded and must be based on an assessment of the facts. The impugned order does not contain any analysis of whether the request of Respondent No. 1 satisfies the larger public interest test. 17.5.3. Third, the Commission failed to give due weight to the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, which categorically held that income tax returns are personal information exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns and related financial records. 18. General Directions and Guidelines 18.1. This Court cannot be unmindful of the practical difficulties encountered in a large number of proceedings relating to maintenance and alimony instituted under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Hindu Marriage Act, and allied statutes. Determination of maintenance necessarily depends upon a fair and accurate assessment of the income, assets, liabilities and overall financial capacity of the parties. Delay is frequently occasioned because one spouse is unable to place on record reliable documentary material establishing the true income of the other spouse. 18.2. Such documents are required not only to substantiate a claim for maintenance, but equally to enable the opposite spouse to rebut, negate, or contextualise the claim, and to assist the court in arriving at a proper and just calculation of maintenance or permanent alimony. In the absence of authentic financial records, the adjudicating court is compelled to proceed on conjecture or incomplete disclosures, which undermines the objective of rendering equitable relief. 18.3. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the appropriate mechanism for obtaining income tax returns and financial records of a spouse in the context of maintenance proceedings is through the competent court adjudicating the maintenance claim, and not through the provisions of the RTI Act. vi. Liberty is granted to Respondent No. 1 to approach the competent court in the pending maintenance proceedings, namely Criminal Appeal No. 303/2017 or any other proceedings as may be pending, and file an appropriate application seeking directions to the Income Tax Department to produce the income tax returns and related financial records of her husband, Sri Zafar Ali Ansari, for the Assessment Years 2012-2017 or such other period as may be relevant. vii. In the event Respondent No. 1 files such an application before the competent court, the said court shall consider the same on its own merits, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of such application. viii. The Income Tax Department is directed to comply with any direction that may be issued by the competent court for the production of the income tax returns and related financ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 24 and Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and corresponding provisions under other personal laws. 2.2. All officers and authorities of the Income Tax Department, including but not limited to the Central Processing Centre, Centralised Processing Centre, Assessing Officers, Income Tax Officers, Chief Public Information Officers, Commissioner(s) and Chief Commissioner(s) of Income Tax, within the jurisdiction of this Court. 2.3. All proceedings in which one spouse seeks production, discovery, disclosure or inspection of the income tax returns, assessment records, financial statements, bank details or any other financial records of the other spouse which are in the custody or control of the Income Tax Department. 2.4. All proceedings where similar financial records are sought from other authorities or institutions holding financial information of a spouse, mutatis mutandis, to the extent applicable. 3. Object and Purpose: The object of these guidelines is four-fold: 3.1. First, to provide a clear, efficient and standardised procedural mechanism for spouses to obtain i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ormation Act, 2005; 4.9. "Income-tax Act" means the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. Relevant Statutory Provisions: The following statutory provisions form the foundation of these guidelines: 5.1. Powers of Courts to Summon Documents 5.1.1. Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973): empowers any court or officer in charge of a police station to issue a summons to any person to produce a document or other thing in his possession which is considered necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code. 5.1.2. Order XVI Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: provides for the issuance of summons to persons whose attendance is required to give evidence or to produce documents. 5.1.3. Section 168 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Formerly Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872): confers upon the Judge the power to put questions to a witness or order the production of any document or thing in whatever form, at any stage of any suit, inquiry or proceeding. 5.1.4. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: empowers the Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of income tax returns and financial records of the Assessee Spouse from the Income Tax Department, the Court shall adopt the following procedure: 7.1. On an application being filed, notice of the application shall be served on the Assessee Spouse, affording an opportunity to file objections within a period of seven days from the date of service. 7.2. The Court shall hear the application, consider any objections of the Assessee Spouse, and pass a reasoned order within a period of fourteen days from the date of filing of the application. 7.3. While considering the application, the Court shall satisfy itself on the following parameters: 7.3.1. That the information sought is relevant to the determination of the maintenance claim; 7.3.2. That the Applicant Spouse has been unable to obtain the information by other reasonable means, including through voluntary disclosure by the Assessee Spouse; 7.3.3. That the scope of the information sought is proportionate to the needs of the case and is not unduly wide or oppressive; 7.3.4. That the period for which the records are sought is relevant to the maintenance proceedings; and 7.3.5. That appropriate safeguards are i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....licant Spouse shall be entitled to inspect and take notes of the relevant financial records, but shall not be permitted to retain copies, unless the Court considers it necessary for the fair conduct of the proceedings. Where copies are permitted, the Court shall impose appropriate conditions. 8.6. Return of Records: Upon conclusion of the proceedings, or upon the records ceasing to be required, the Court shall direct that all records furnished by the Income Tax Department be returned to the Department or destroyed (if photocopy has been produced). 9. Suo Motu Powers of the Court: The competent Court may, even in the absence of a formal application by the Applicant Spouse, exercise its suo motu powers to summon income tax returns and financial records from the Income Tax Department where the Court considers that the determination of a fair and just maintenance is not possible without such records. In such cases, the Court shall record reasons for exercising the suo motu power and shall afford an opportunity to the Assessee Spouse to be heard before issuing the Production Order. 10. Directions for Financial Disclosure by Both Spouses 10.1. As Directed by the Hon'ble Supre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er under his seal and signature. 13.4. Place the certified copies in a sealed cover addressed to the Court, clearly marking the cover with the case number, the name of the Assessee Spouse, and the words "CONFIDENTIAL - TO BE OPENED ONLY BY THE COURT." 13.5. Dispatch the sealed cover to the Court through a responsible officer or through registered post/ speed post / special messenger, ensuring proof of delivery. 13.6. File a compliance report with the Court confirming the furnishing of the records, along with a covering letter listing the documents enclosed. 14. Timeline for Compliance: The Income Tax Department shall comply with the Production Order within the following timelines: Action Timeline Acknowledgement of Production Order 3 working days Retrieval and certification of records 14 working days Dispatch in a sealed cover to the Court 3 working days after certification Filing of compliance report Within 3 working days of dispatch Total maximum time from receipt to compliance 21 working days (approximately 30 calendar days) 15. Records Not Available or Not Maintained: Where the records sought are not available, either because n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se its revisional or appellate jurisdiction to: 18.1. Examine whether the Court of first instance properly exercised its discretion in declining the Production Order, having regard to the parameters set out above; 18.2. Direct the Court of first instance to issue a Production Order where the refusal was not justified; 18.3. Directly issue a Production Order in the exercise of its appellate or revisional powers where the interests of justice so require; and 18.4. Take appropriate action against the Income Tax Department for non-compliance with a Production Order, including initiation of contempt proceedings. 19. Enhancement of Maintenance Pending Appellate Determination: Where the appellate Court is satisfied that the maintenance awarded by the Court of first instance was inadequate due to the non-availability of financial records of the Assessee Spouse, and where such records are subsequently produced pursuant to a Production Order, the appellate Court shall re-assess the maintenance quantum in light of the additional material and pass appropriate orders, including retrospective enhancement where warranted. 20. SAFEGUARDS AND CONDITIONS FOR DISCLOSURE: The followi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee Spouse is at least as stated by the Applicant Spouse; 22.2. Issue a Production Order to the Income Tax Department suo motu; 22.3. Award costs against the Assessee Spouse; 22.4. Impose such other penalty as may be permissible under law. 23. Non-Compliance by the Income Tax Department: Where the Income Tax Department fails to comply with a Production Order within the stipulated time without justifiable reasons, the Court shall be entitled to: 23.1. Issue a peremptory direction with a further timeline; 23.2. Summon the Designated Officer / Nodal Officer to appear in person and explain the non-compliance; 23.3. Initiate proceedings for contempt of Court; 23.4. Report the non-compliance to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax; 23.5. Award costs against the Department. 24. Applicability to Other Financial Authorities: These guidelines shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to applications seeking financial records of a spouse from other authorities and institutions, including but not limited to: 24.1. The Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department, for GST returns and assessment records; 24.2. The Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), f....