The Right To Information
For BCAJ August, 2006
Narayan Varma
Citizens make
use of the Right available under the RTI Act for various purposes seeking
information on various issues, both public and private. It appears that
citizens have also started using the RTI Act in connection with tax matters. I
have with me more than 10 Orders of Central Information Commission (CIC) which
is the highest and final authority under the RTI Act, dealing with matters
related to various provisions of the Income-tax Act. I briefly deal with two of
them in this article. I have extensively covered the famous case of Mrs. Farida Hoosenalli in earlier
issue. Hereunder are two other recent decisions :
·
One is the decision given on
o
A copy of the tax returns filed by Shri Ramesh Chandra, A-2/178, Janakpuri,
o
A copy of the investigation report of Tax Evasion
Petition (TEP) submitted by Mr. P. P. Sharan against
Mr. Ramesh Chandra.
The CPIOs of both the Public Authorities, CIT for (i) and DIT — Investigation for (ii), have denied
information to him u/s.8(1)(j) and u/s.8(1)(h).
The CIC held
that the Appellate Authority has correctly applied S. 8(1)(j)
and S. 8(1)(h) for exemption from disclosure and the appeal is accordingly
dismissed.
It may be
noted that Mr. Ramesh Chandra was the landlord of the
applicant, Mr. Rakesh Agarwal.
There was a landlord-tenant dispute and it was held that the information was
sought for personal reasons, not involving any public interest. As the matter
relating to the investigation of tax evasion was in progress, the disclosure
was held to be exempt u/s.8(1)(h).
·
Arun Verma v. DG of IT (systems) : Order dated
The applicant had asked the CPIO,
CBDT
o
PAN and dates of allotment
o
TAN and dates of allotment
of 26 companies which all
appear to be mainly engaged in sea food and marine product business.
The CPIO
(Central Public Information Officer) had held that PAN and TAN of taxpayers are
personal information that is subjected to confidentiality u/s.138 of the
Income-tax Act. U/s.8(1)(j)
of the RTI Act, such personal information cannot be disclosed.
In the first
appeal, the applicant referred to the proviso to S. 8(1)(j)
[Clause exempts certain personal information (see July issue of BCAJ)], which
reads as under :
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the
Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
Based on
above, he pleaded that he is entitled to the information sought by him.
Commission’s
Decision :
PAN is a
statutory number, which functions as a unique identification for each taxpayer.
Making PAN public can result in misuse of this information by other persons to
quote wrong PAN while entering into financial transactions and also could
compromise the privacy of the personal financial transactions linked with PAN.
This also holds true for TAN. Information relating to PAN and TAN including the
dates of issue of these numbers are composite and confidential in nature
u/s.138 of Income-tax Act. The appellant has not made a case of bona fide
public interest for disclosure of PAN/TAN.
The appeal was
therefore dismissed.
The RTI
Act :
To continue
the study . . . .
Ss.(1) of S. 10 provides that when the information sought is
partly exempt and partly not and such parts can reasonably be severed from each
other, the part which is not exempt has to be provided.
In the second
case covered hereinabove, the applicant had pleaded that even if PAN and TAN
are exempt, he be provided with the dates of allotment thereof, which would not
be exempt. However, the CIC held that both the informations
are composite and confidential in nature
Ss.(2)
provides that when such part information is supplied, the PIO has to give
notice to the applicant informing him that only part of the information is
provided, the reasons for the decision for not supplying the part information
and the name and designation of the person who took the said decision.
S. 11 makes
detailed provisions for Third Party information. When an
information sought by any citizen is in respect of any third party, (as
in the case of Farida Hoosenalli)
and the PIO intends to disclose the same, he has to give a written notice to
such third party within five days from the receipt of the application.
The Section
provides that such notice is to be given when the information relates to or has
been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by the
third party.
What is the
meaning of the above words in italics ? Has
treatment to be explicit or can it be implicit ?
Are all tax returns furnished by the assessees deemed
to be treated by them as confidential or one has to so state on the said returns ? This was argued by the representative of Farida Hoosenalli that the
returns of the producer of ‘Black’ movie were not treated by the said party as
confidential, but it was negated and held that they were confidential.
The third
party has a right to make a submission in writing or orally within 10 days from
the date of receipt of such notice and the PIO has to keep in view such
submission while taking a decision about disclosure of information. In spite of
the above provision, protecting to some extent disclosure of anyone’s personal
information to the other party is overridden under the proviso to this
sub-section. It reads as under :
“Provided
that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law,
disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in
importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.”
U/ss.(3), the PIO is required to make decision within forty
days (30 days normal period + 10 days, time taken by third party in making
submissions) as to whether or not to disclose the information/record or part
thereof to the third party. The said notice shall also state that the third
party is entitled to prefer an appeal against his decision.
I am unable to
understand clearly the implication of this Section and how it is to operate. If
the PIO is allowed to give the information to the applicant in spite of the
objection of the third party, then what is the purpose of the appeal of the
said third party or is it to be understood that though he decides to give
information and communicates that decision to the third party, he actually
withholds parting of the information to the applicant, either till the time to
make appeal elapses or till the appeal made is disposed of.
Other News :
·
RTI camps held from 1st July to
15th July in more than 40 cities in
·
On this occasion of camp
holding, BCAS Foundation published second booklet on RTI, namely Frequently
Asked Questions on The RTI Act. Any member
desiring to have a copy may obtain it from BCAS office.
·
An order issued by the Chief
Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah
states that in case of quotations, bid or tender or any other information prior
to the conclusion of a contract, it could be categorised
as trade secret. But once concluded, the confidentiality of the transactions
cannot be claimed. Its information can be obtained under the RTI Act.
·
S. 7(1) of the RTI Act provides
that the PIO shall as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty
days of the receipt of the request provide the information. However, the
Proviso thereto states : “Provided that where the
information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall
be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request.”
It appears
that possibly for the first time, this Proviso has been used successfully in
connection with an application in respect of uncovered and unmarked trenches
and stormwater drains in Bandra
and Santacruz. Under the application, the names of
the officers responsible for this neglect, etc. were sought from the Assistant
Municipal Commissioner. On July 13, Information Commis-sioner
Suresh Joshi held that 48-hour rule applied in this case.
·
The dates for the next RTI
Clinic are :
From