##PAGE1##

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/CCABH/A/2025/116204

Sachin Sharma .….अपीलकता(cid:18)/Appellant

VERSUS बनाम PIO,

Office of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Ayakar

Bhawan, City Centre, Gwalior, MP – 474011 ….(cid:29)ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing : 15.04.2026 Date of Decision : 20.04.2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari

The instant matter is listed for hearing on priority basis in compliance with the order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh

at Gwalior in WP No. 44372/2025.

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 22.11.2024 CPIO replied on : 16.12.2024 First appeal filed on : 18.01.2024 First Appellate Authority’s order : 17.02.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13.05.2025

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03-02-2024 (online) seeking the following information:

CIC/CCABH/A/2025/116204 Page 1 of 5

1 / 6

“INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) of Mr. Ramavtar Sharma son of late Mr. Ratiram Sharma permanent resident of Village Mehda, Tehsil Ron, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh, pin code 477335 and Current address Arya Nagar, Lashkar Road Bhind, M.P Pin code 477001, for the financial

year 2022-23.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 03-02-2024 stating as under:

“As the information sought by the applicant doesn't seem to have larger public interest involved, therefore the information cannot be provided as the case is exempt from disclosure as per section 8 of RTI Act 2005. Further, the third party, Shri Ramavtar Sharma has also not given

consent to provide the above information to the applicant.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03-02-2024.

The FAA vide its order dated 03-02-2024, held as under:

“1. Appeal filed by appellant u/s 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 20.01.2025.

1.1 As Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) has replied vide its order u/s 7(1) of RTI Act, 2005 dt 16.12.2024 in response to RTI application dated 03.12.2024 of the appellant that the information sought by applicant doesn't seem to have larger public interest involved. Therefore, the information cannot be provided as the same is exempt from disclosure as per section 8 of RTI Act. Further, the third party, Shri Ram Avatar Sharma has also not given consent to provide the above information to the applicant. Vide this appeal the appellant has requested the appellate authority to provide it the following information: 1.2 "CPIO directed to provide the information as per RTI application

03.12.2024 i.e. copy of ITR of Shri Ramavatar Sharma for F.Y. 2022-23"

CIC/CCABH/A/2025/116204 Page 2 of 5

2 / 6

2. Hearing opportunity was given to appellant on 28.01.2025 at 11:30 AM, appellant attended the same on the date. On perusal of records of this office and providing sufficient hearing opportunity to appellant it is

seen that

The case law cited by the appellant has been perused the applicant has submitted as under:

"Exemption contained in the clause (j) of section 8(1) are not absolute but subject to few exemption: there is very fine line between the unwarranted invasion of the privacy of someone and larger public interest. Exemptions covered under clause (j) of section 8(1) are not absolute but conditional. These exemptions can be overruled if the

disclosure of such information is in the favor of public interest."

The submission are perused and it is held that there is explicit provision wherein the disclosures of information can be made. Hence appeal is

disposed off as rejected.”

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

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through video conference.

Respondent: Ms. Alka Saksena, Income Tax officer Ward 2 (1)/CPIO, appeared through video conference.

5. Pro