O R D E R

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)O/o. the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 3(2), Bhopal.The appellant seeking information is as under:-

“Mr. Manoj Khubchandani has submitted copy of returns and appears that he filed returns under section 44AD. and showing his business as Share Broker Commission Agent he has submitted the Balance Sheet and Return to the Hon'ble Court of Bhopal regarding as Cash Loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac Only) as per his Return to Chinar Realty Pvt. Ltd. Please Supply us Copy of his Returns and financial statements for Assessment Year 2016-17 &

2017-18 claimed to be filed with Income Tax Return.”

2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 22.11.2019 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The first appellate authority upheld CPIO’s reply vide FAO dated 12.12.2019 and disposed of his first appeal. He has filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant did not attend the hearing as his number was found switched off and notice has not been delivered. The respondent, Shri Vilas Dharmadhikari, CPIO/ITO attended the hearing through audio-call.

4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 06.08.2021 and the same has been taken on record.

5. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 14.11.2019, they have informed the appellant that the information sought pertains to the third party information under section 11 (1) of the RTI Act. Accordingly, consent of the third party was sought vide their office letter dated 05.11.2019 and the third party had raised objection for sharing the information, therefore the information sought cannot be disclosed under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.

Decision:

6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought copy of Returns and financial statements of Shri Manoj Khubchandani for Assessment Year 2016-17 & 2017-18. The Commission further observes that the ITR is the personal information, the details of which can only be shared with that person and therefore such personal information cannot be provided to any third party. The Commission also observes that the concerned CPIO has rightly denied the information sought under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Therefore, the CPIO’s reply as well as FAO is in order. In this regard, the Commission referred to the judgment of the The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Naresh Kumar Trehan v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta in W.P.(C) 85/2010 & CM Nos.156/2010 & 5560/2011 dated 24.11.2014 had observed as under:

“25. Indisputably, Section 8(1)(j) of the Act would be applicable to the information pertaining to Dr Naresh Trehan (petitioner in W.P.(C) 88/2010) and the information contained in the income tax returns would be personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. However, the CIC directed disclosure of information of Dr Trehan also by concluding that income tax returns and information provided for assessment was in relation to a "public activity." In my view, this is wholly erroneous and unmerited. The act of filing returns with the department cannot be construed as public activity. The expression "public activity" would mean activities of a public nature and not necessarily act done in compliance of a statute. The expression "public activity" would denote activity done for the public and/or in some manner available for participation by public or some section of public. There is no public activity involved in filing a return or an individual pursuing his assessment with the income tax authorities. In this view, the information rela