Income tax returns are personal but may be disclosed in maintenance proceedings to prevent suppression of income and ensure fair adjudication.

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.04.2024 (online) seeking the following information:

“I, Akanksha Katiyar wife of Shubham Katiyar seeking information in respect to filling of income tax return and Form 26C of my Husband namely Shubham Katiyar, son of Pramod Kumar Katiyar resident of MIG- 30, Barra-1, Kanpur Nagar having Pan card number *******33F. Kindly provide me income return of my husband if any filed. Also, provide the last income tax return filed my husband.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 02.05.2024 stating as under:

“An application bearing registration No. CCAKP/R/E/24/00050 dated 04.04.2024 was filed by Ms. Akanksha Katiyar. Town Area, Ward No-7, Shivrajpur, Kanpur Nagar which was received in this office on 12.04.2024 through the RTI-MIS Portal. The information is provided as under:

You have applied to this office to get you available the Income Tax Return and form 26C of your husband Shri Shubham Katiyar, MIG-30. Barra-1, Kanpur. In this context, a letter was issued to your husband on 23.04.2024 for taking consent for providing information under the RTI Act, 2005. In response to the letter Shri Shubham Katiyar vide letter dated 30.04.2024 requested not to provide the information. Therefore, the above information about the assessee cannot be provided.

In view of the above observations, the application under RTI Act, 2005 is hereby disposed of.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.05.2024.

The FAA vide its order dated 21.06.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: She along with her counsel appeared through video conference.

Respondent: Shri Virendra Kumar Dwivedi, ITO Ward 1 (1) (1) /CPIO, appeared through video conference.

Third party: Adv. Hemant Kumar Pandey with Shri Pramod Kumar Katiyar, appeared through video conference.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 27.06.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service. Thus, Regulation No. 10 of the Central Information Commission Management Regulations 2007 has not been complied with by the Appellant.

6. The Appellant inter alia submitted that she has filed a detailed written submission dated 20.02.2026 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record, copy of the same was sent to the Respondent as well as the third party. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:

I. INTRODUCTORY SUBMISSION

The present appeal concerns denial of income tax particulars of Shri Shubham Katiyar under Section 8 (1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 , despite the fact that his income and financial capacity are directly in issue in pending maintenance and criminal revision proceedings.

The Appellant seeks disclosure of gross income particulars and Income Tax Return details for the last six assessment years, as determination of true earning capacity requires examination of income trend over a reasonable period.

The matter requires application of the statutory balancing test under Section 8 (1)(j) in light of binding judicial precedents governing financial disclosure in matrimonial disputes.

II. QUESTIONS FOR DETERMINATION

1. Whether income tax returns and gross income particulars of a spouse, when directly rele