The Hans India: New Delhi: Tuesday,
September 27, 2016.
It could be a world record, because an appellant demanded
unimaginably huge information. Mr G wanted all the records available with the
Income tax department in respect of several assessees for various assessment
years, including inspection of all records, the copies of the documents mentioned
at the time of inspection, the officers from assessing officers to CCIT, who
are the officers to take action on "Tax Evasion Petition" given by
him from 1/8/2003 till date, etc.
The length
and breadth of information he sought includes a lot about all officers working
in all wings of Income Tax Offices in Delhi, Central Delhi, Chandigarh &
Mumbai, of whom he gave 101 names, besides assets and ITRs of their spouses and
dependents. The range is also very huge. He wants reports for all the years
till ‘the date of answering’. It takes
decades for any office to compile this information.
This is only
from one RTI application. He filed several such applications. He claimed to be ‘informer’ and wanted about
assets statements of officers listed by civil list number and designation,
along with assets statements of their spouse and person dependent on them for
last ten years, details of immoveable assets acquired by them in the last ten
years along with their sources.
This demand
does not reflect any compelling public interest in disclosure. Hence, under
section 8(1)(j) information can be denied. Most of G’s RTI applications and
appeals are about various kinds of information of Naresh Trehan, his firms,
companies and partners.
He filed
number of such applications earlier also. Then Naresh Trehan on behalf of
Escorts and AAA Portfolio Pvt Lmt filed several writ petitions against this
applicant. The CPIO of IT department also filed a Writ Petition. For example,
Naresh Trehan (W.P.(C) 85/2010 & CM Nos. 156/2010 & 5560 /2011), In
eight writ petitions, they challenged the common order of CIC dated 14-12-2009
directing inspection of records and other information including Income Tax
returns to G.
As usual G
was asking for all records available with IT department with respect to 8
assesses. When the I-T department served notices under S. 11(2) of the RTI Act,
assessees raised objections. Justice Vibhu Bakhru of Delhi High Court concluded
that the CIC has misdirected to assume that there was some public interest in
demanding such huge information.
High court
held that there was no material to indicate that there was any corruption on
the part of I-T Authorities that led to a justifiable apprehension that the
said authorities were not performing their function diligently.
The CIC had
not found the assessment proceedings were not being conducted in accordance
with the law. G wanted to process the information to assist and support the
role an Assessing Officer. This has a propensity of interfering in the
assessment proceedings, hence cannot be considered to be in larger public
interest.
The CIC had
proceeded on the basis that disclosure would enable to bring the instances of
tax evasion to the notice of I-T authorities. Justice Bakhru opined this reason
was flawed as it would tend to subvert the assessment process rather than aid
it.
Further, the
proposition that unrelated parties could intervene in assessment proceedings is
absolutely alien to Income Tax Act, 1961. The income tax returns and
information are provided in aid of the proceedings that are conducted under
that Act and there is no scope for enhancing or providing for and additional
dimension to the assessment proceedings.
The Delhi
High Court finally concluded that the disclosure of information has no
discernable element of larger public interest and set aside the order of CIC.
Most of G’s RTI applications were rejected because of stay by the Delhi High
Court. That stay order was confirmed on merits in its final decision dated
24-11-2014.
As pointed
out by the Delhi High Court, the appellant couldn’t present anything in support
of his claim of larger public interest in disclosure of Income Tax returns and
assessment related information. Moreover, repeated demands of information
against Naresh Trehan and Escorts etc reflect the undue enthusiasm of the
appellant to interfere with the process of assessment of Tax to be paid by
Escorts, which is the statutory function of Public Authority and Income Tax Act
doesn’t permit interference by any other person.
Income tax
returns are held to be personal information of third parties squarely
attracting S. 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. However, this section along with S. 11(1)
& S. 8(2) provided for exception in case of larger public interest. The
appellant should have shown public interest in his demand.
The Bombay
High Court in Writ Petition No. 8753 of 2013 Shailesh Gandhi v CIC held that
since the right to privacy has been recognised as a fundamental right to which
a citizen is entitled to, therefore, unless the condition mentioned in Section
8(1)(j) is satisfied, the information cannot be provided… the burden on the
applicant is much more onerous than may be a routine case.
The appellant
failed to establish Public interest while the Public Authority Successfully
shown that that there was no public interest. The Commission concludes that G
couldn’t show any public interest apparently motivated by some other interest
and being a professional ‘informer’ he might have been interested in increasing
his income by means of securing ‘incentive’ by giving Tax Evasion information.
G was not just exercising his right to information. G cannot be encouraged to
misuse RTI.
Indiscriminate
demand of voluminous information is not only abuse of right by the petitioner
but also threatens the core function of the public authority. It is relevant to
refer to what the Supreme Court in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC
497,said such frivolous applicants:
Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for
disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and
accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of
corruption) would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the
efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged
down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information.
The Act
should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the
national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and
harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of
oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty.
The nation
does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends
75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants
instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the
RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead
to employees of a public authorities prioritising “information furnishing”, at
the cost of their normal and regular duties.”
The CIC Bench
cannot encourage such repetitions and multiple applications against some
individuals or targeting certain companies. Appellant shall not file repeat
such RTI requests, and if filed, they could be rejected.
Those who
claim to be ‘informer’ cannot misuse the RTI Act and IT Act, and if they
misuse, they should not be considered as deserving to receive the incentives
from tax-payer’s money. The Bench recommends the respondent authority to take
necessary measures to prevent misuse of RTI and IT Act provisions by such
‘informers’ by amending their policy to
pay incentives to ‘informer’. (based on decision of CIC Bench of Sri Basanth
Seth and Sridhar Acharyulu in CIC/DS/A/2011/002965 in August 2016)
.JPG)
.JPG)
