के (cid:3)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:18), मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:24)ी, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/CBDTD/A/2024/632561 Niqhat Fatma Rizvi .….अपीलकता(cid:18)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO, Office of the Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Center, 48/1 &

48/2, Prestige Alpha, Beratena Agrahara, Electronic City (Post), Hosur Road, Bengaluru – 560500 ….(cid:29)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 11.02.2026 Date of Decision : 09.03.2026 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 14.06.2024 CPIO replied on : 28.06.2024 First appeal filed on : 30.06.2024 First Appellate Authority’s order : 29.07.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 29.07.2024 Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.06.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:

“It is requested that the petitioner Niqhat Fatma Rizvi, House No. 785/2 A, Dariyabad, Prayagraj (Allahabad), UP., under Right to Public Information Act 2005 want to get information:-

1. Income Tax Return 2022 - 23 report has been filed by Dr. Waris Ali (Aadhaar Number -*********743) in District Court Prayagraj (PDF attached). Is this report correct?

2. Has the ITR report (PDF attached) been provided to Dr. Waris Ali by your department?

3. Has the Processing Information Report for 2022-23 been made available to Dr. Waris Ali by the Centralized Processing Centre?

4. Has ITR for 2023 - 24 been filed by Dr. Waris Ali?

5. Has ITR 2024-25 been applied by Dr. Waris Ali?

Therefore, I request you to kindly answer the above information sought by me under the Right to Information Act 2005 in writing as soon as possible in written on my house address.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 28.06.2024 stating as under:

“It is seen that the applicant, Smt Nighat, has sought information in respect of the income tax return details of Dr.Waris Ali, which is Third Party information. Hence, the request is liable to be rejected invoking the provisions of Section 8(1)(e) & 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

It may be mentioned here that the information provided in the return of income filed is held by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, in its fiduciary capacity and treated as confidential. Kind attention is invited to Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act which reads as follows:

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the matter of Girish Ramachandra Deshpande (SLP No.27734 of 2012) has held that the information relating to Income tax matters of an assessee is personal information which stands exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act. In the application, nothing is found to establish the larger public interest by seeking this information. Therefore, the undersigned is not satisfied that larger public interest warrants disclosure of the information sought. In view of the above, the request of the applicant is rejected, invoking the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.06.2024.

The FAA vide its order dated 29.07.2024, 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: Absent despite notice.

Respondent: Shri B. Vaidhyanath, Income Tax Officer and CPIO, appeared through video conference.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 29.07.2024 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