ORDER

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. 5(3), Bengaluru seeking following information:-

1. “The copy of the Form 16 issued by the company at Micro Focus Software Development, ‘LAUREL’, Block ‘D’, 65/2, Bagmane Techpark, C.V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru for the year filed for 2016-17, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 of my husband Mr. Suman Chatterjee.

2. The relevant documents/papers relating to the Gross Annual Income of my husband Mr. Suman Chatterjee.

3. The relevant documents/papers relating to the Gross salary of my husband Mr. Suman Chatterjee.”

2. The CPIO responded on 27-12-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 11-01-2019 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 05-03-2019. Thereafter, she filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant, Ms. Amrita Chatterjee attended the hearing through audio- video conferencing. Ms. Meenakshi, CPIO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.

4. The appellant limited her submissions on supplying the ‘gross annual income’ of her husband Mr. Suman Chatterjee so that she could defend her matrimonial case. 5. The respondent submitted that the Income Tax Returns of some other individual is an exempted information u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and therefore, they have denied this information to the appellant.

Decision:

6. With regards to the applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 regarding non-disclosure of the Income Tax Returns, this Commission refers to the judgment dated 03-10-2012 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 titled as Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission & ors., wherein, it has been held as under:-

“12. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the abovementioned information sought for qualifies to be "personal information" as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.

13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.

14. The details disclosed by a person in his