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/DGIPU/A/2024/616705 Devendrakumar Ankhshrao Surekar .….अपीलकता(cid:18)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम PIO, Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(3), Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan, Near Akurdi Railway Staion, Pune - 411044 ….(cid:29)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date of Decision : 29.09.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 16.11.2023 CPIO replied on : 19.12.2023 First appeal filed on : 29.12.2023 First Appellate Authority’s order : 24.01.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21.04.2024 Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.11.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:

“Provide the generic information about net Income/Gross income of my wife Anjali Laxmanrao Petekar, PAN No. CXYPPxxxxx from the period of AY 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. Please provide the detail writing with true copy.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.12.2023 stating as under:

“Since the information sought by the applicant pertains to third party i.e. Smt. Anjali Laxmanrao Petekar, a letter was issued to Smt. Anjali Laxmanrao Patekar dated 24-11-2023, as per the provisions of section 11(1) of RTI Act 2005. Smt. Anjali Laxmanrao Petekar has objected to providing the above information to the applicant. The reply of third party (Smt. Anjali Laxmanrao Petekar) received through mail on 29/11/2023, is as under.

Thank you for your email for notifying me some third person Devendrakumar Ankushrao Surkear is trying to seek my personal information for his personal use has nothing to do with public interest So I would request you please do not disclose my personal information to him as I have nothing to do with him.

I would request not to disclose my personal information in public as this is not going to help public interest as this is my personal information. As the person Devendra is asking for my information on his personal interest as this will not be helpful for any public meant in use application has stated interest. The person Devendra has a history of doing mental and financial torture to me in past so again it will be threat to my life if this information has been made public. Devendrakumar and his complete family has IPC section 498A, 294, 323, 506 and 34 on them in return to that he is trying to seek my personal information to torture me and my family So it will be a threat to me and my family. So I would request you not to disclose my personal information to him.

The information sought by the applicant is purely 'personal' to third party, which if allowed to be disclosed, would indeed cause unwarranted invasions of privacy of third party, especially in view of the fact that the third party herself here has objected to disclosure of the said information. Further, the Appellant has not proved [with documentary evidence] any 'larger public interest' which would warrant the disclosure of the present information, and there is no public interest involved in sharing of this information to the applicant.

The applicant in his application has stated that the purpose for which the information is required 'court case work. The applicant has enclosed a copy of order passed by Civil Judge J.D., Dharmabad dated 14/08/2023 whereby the case filed by Smt. Anjali Devendrakumar Surekar (i.e. third party) for alimony has been rejected by the Hon Court. No details / document relating to any pending court case or ongoing court case filed by Smt. Anjali Laxmanrao Patekar against the applicant is furnished by the applicant. Therefore, the 'purpose for seeking the information' as mentioned by the applicant being 'court case work' is not established by the applicant. The applicant has also attached a copy of judgement of Hon. CIC, New Delhi in the case of Yash Malhotra vs. CPIO, New Delhi. However, the facts of th