VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The petitioner (CPIO) has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 13.06.2017 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’) passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter ‘CIC’).

2. By the impugned order, the CIC has allowed the second appeal preferred by the respondent under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter ‘RTI Act’) by directing the petitioner to provide the information as sought by the respondent by his application filed on 12.03.2016. The CIC has also called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be taken under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for failing to provide the information within the prescribed time.

Factual Background

3. On 12.03.2016, the respondent filed an application with the petitioner (CPIO, Office of the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 32(5), New Delhi) seeking information in respect of the Sales Turnover Figure and Net Profit Figure of M/s P.K. Himatsingka & Co. for the Financial Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 and copy of the firm‘s ITR - V return for the Assessment Year 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016.

4. On 08.04.2016, the petitioner denied the aforesaid information on the ground that the information sought for by the petitioner was a third party information and in the nature of personal information and thus, exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

5. On 12.04.2016, the respondent filed an appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) for issuance of necessary directions to the petitioner for furnishing the information as sought by him.

6. On 27.06.2016, the respondent preferred a second appeal before the CIC under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act.

7. On 13.06.2017, the CIC passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to provide the information as sought by the respondent within a period of 10 days from the receipt of the impugned order. The CIC further called upon the petitioner to explain as to why penal action should be not taken in terms of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for failing to provide the information as sought by the respondent, within the prescribed time.

Submissions

8. Mr. Hossain, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the CIC has failed to appreciate that the petitioner was justified in denying the information relating to the Income Tax Returns of M/s P.K. Himatsingka to the respondent, as the said information – being a third party information and in the nature of personal information – was exempt from disclosure by virtue of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors: (2013) 1 SCC 212 in support of his contention.

9. Mr. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contested the aforesaid submission and contended that the company M/s P.K. Himatsingka & Co. was declaring a lower income than its genuine income for evading taxes. He also contended that similar information had been obtained from the department of Trade and Taxes, Ward 88, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Naval Head Quarters and Engineers Store Department, West Bengal.

Reasons and Conclusion

10. The principal question that falls for consideration of this Court is whether the details of profit declared by a third party and its Income tax returns is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

11. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to refer to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act which reads as under:-

“8. Exemption from disclosure of information.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, -

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasi