Business Standard: New Delhi: Monday,
October 03, 2016.
The Central
Information Commission (CIC) has admonished a Right to Information (RTI)
applicant who was allegedly seeking massive information from the income tax
(I-T) department to spot tax evasion by assessees and give it back to the
department to get rewards for being an "informer".
A division
bench of the Commission noted the appellant Rakesh Gupta is an
"informer" which means he earns money at the rate of 10 per cent of
the tax amount recovered from the taxpayers because of the information given.
The Bench comprising
Information Commissioners Basant Seth and Sridhar Acharyulu observed that the
question to be considered is that he was using the RTI route to collect
information, verify whether the assessee has suppressed income and provide that
information to the I-T office.
"If his
tip-off results in recovery, he would get 10 per cent as incentive. Whether RTI
can be used to advance income interest of individuals becoming 'informers', or
whether 'informers' have right to such information that could fetch him income?,"
the Bench observed.
Gupta
contended that since the incentive to reveal such income-related information
helps the state to enhance income, it is in public interest and, thus, he can
also seek the same, the order of the Bench noted.
"How can
taking information from the IT Department, to give it back to the same office
and making money be considered as 'public interest'. In fact, this speaks of
'system' of the IT department or their efficiency. If their information could
be analysed and used for enhancing recovery by an individual outsider, why not
the department itself do that job? On this logic, it cannot be considered in
public interest," the Bench said.
Rejecting the
demand for "very high volume" of information related to a hospital
group perhaps constituting 50 per cent of the IT office, the Bench said
multiple applications regarding Escorts and top executives concerned give an
impression that for some reason, the appellant was "targeting" the
Escorts.
"Income
Tax returns are held to be personal information of third parties squarely
attracting section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, this section along with
Section 11(1) and 8(2) provided for exception in case of larger public
interest.
"The
appellant failed to establish public interest while the Public Authority
successfully shows that there was no public interest," the order said.
It said,
"The Commission concludes that Rakesh Kumar Gupta could not show any
public 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. Rakesh Kumar Gupta was not just exercising his right
to information." The Commission noted his demand for information about
Naresh Trehan and his companies appears to be insatiate.
"The
whole office has to work for longer times to furnish information sought. Rakesh
Kumar Gupta cannot be encouraged to misuse RTI. Indiscriminate demand of
voluminous information is not only abuse of right by the petitioner but also
threatened the core function of the public authority," it said.
.JPG)
.JPG)
