V V Anoopkumar v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA) , Kochi

Page 2 of 10

"1) GROSS INCOME OF ASHOK SEN, MY FATHER-IN-LAW, PAN CARD NUMBER ******817H, IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURNS, FOR THE PERIOD

APRIL 1980 TO MARCH 2023.

2) GROSS INCOME OF ASHWINI A SEN, MY WIFE, PAN CARD NUMBER

********27Q IN HER INCOME TAX RETURNS, FOR THE PERIOD APRIL

2011 TO MARCH 2023.

3)DETAILS OF HIGH VALUE TRANSACTIONS, DONE BY ASHOK SEN,

WHERE IN HIS PAN CARD NUMBER********17H WAS RECORDED

DURING THE PERIOD APRIL 1980 TO MARCH 2023.

4)DETAILS OF HIGH VALUE TRANSACTIONS, DONE BY ASHWINI A SEN,

WHERE IN HER PAN CARD NUMBER ********27Q WAS RECORDED DURING THE PERIOD APRIL 2011 TO MARCH 2023." The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.06.2023 stating as under:

"1. The above application was filed seeking information on the Gross Total Income and High value transactions done by Sri Ashok Sen (PAN:

AMVPP8817H) and Smt. Ashwini A Sen (PAN: EKKPS4127Q).Since the PAN of Smt. Ashwini A Sen is under the jurisdiction of CPIO and ITO,Ward-1, Kollam copy of the RTI application has also been forwarded to the CPIO and ITO,Ward-1, Kollam for further necessary action with regard to the information sought in the case of Smt. Ashwini A Sen. This office having jurisdiction over the assessee Sri Ashok Sen ITBA/RTI/F/8/2023- 24/1053613980(1) vide letter No dated 08/06/2023 had sought objections of the assessee Sri Ashok Sen in sharing of his details as sought for under the RTI Act,2005. The assessee has expressed strong objections in writing vide his email dated 13/06/2023 regarding disclosure of information.

2. Further, it needs to be examined whether your case falls anywhere within the meaning of "Public Interest" as defined by Central Information Commission [CIC] in various decisions which are discussed hereunder. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri. Girish Ramachandra Deshpande Vs. CIC and others (2012) 351 ITR 472(SC) held that the details disclosed by a person in his Income tax returns are "personal information" which stands exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information officer or the State Public Information Officer 2 / 11

2

Page 3 of 10

or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justified the disclosure of such information.

3. In view of the above decision and the fact that the assessee. Shri Ashok Sen, has expressed his objection to the disclosure of information, it is informed that this office is not in a position to provide the information sought by you, unless and otherwise involvement of larger public interest is justified in disclosure of information which is not so in the instant case."

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.07.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 01.09.2023, held as under.

"Thus, the assessee has nowhere proved that his case fits into larger public interest warranting of supply of information and do not fall into exemptions provided under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and I uphold the order of the CPIO dated 19/06/2023 in this regard.

Accordingly, the application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 stated above is disposed off."

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: Shri Gopakumar B, Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (1)/CPIO, appeared through video conference.

The appellant inter alia submitted that the information sought pertains to his father-in-law and estranged wife, namely Shri Ashok Sen and Ms. Ashwini A Sen respectively. He stated that his wife has registered a police case against him through FIR 1095/2021 in Kollam East police station under IPC 498A ,406 and 34.

He pleaded that neither the complainant nor the investigating officer submitted jewelry bills /statement of the jewelry shop manager along with the charge sheet in the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Kollam. As it is a false case instituted against him and his mother aged 65 years. The appellant submitted that as per the said FIR, the appellant has demanded 75 sovereign 3 / 11

3

Page 4 of 10

gold ornaments in his marriage and his father-in-law, Shri Ashok Sen took loan to purchase the same. The appellant needs the above information to prove his innocence in the court of law.

The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 25.03.2025 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record, copy of the same was sent to the appellant. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:

"The applicant Shri Anoopkumar V. V. had filed an application u/s 6(1) of the RTI Act before the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala on 22.05.2023. The application was transferred to this office on 07.06.2023. The information sought by the applicant are as follows:

1. Gross income of Ashok Sen, the applicant's Father-in-law, in his income tax returns for the period April 1980 to March 2023.

2. Gross income of Aswini A Sen, the applicant's wife in her income tax returns for the period April 2011 to March 2023.

3. Details of High Value Transactions done by Ashok Sen during the period April 1980 to March 2023

4. Details of High value Transactions done by Aswini A Sen during the period April 2011 to March 2023.

2. The CPIO, the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Trivandrum passed an order u/s 7 of the RTI Act on 19.06.2023 with respect to the information sought for, in the case of Shri Ashok Sen, rejecting the RTI application in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Girish Ramachandra Deshpande Vs CIC and other (2012) 351 ITR 472 (SC) wherein, it was held that, the details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are personal information which stands exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Information officer or the State Public information officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that a larger public interest justified the disclosure of such application. The appeal filed by the applicant against the order of CPIO before the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivandrum (Appellate Authority) was also disposed of on 01.09.2023 by upholding the order of the CPIO. 4 / 11

4

Page 5 of 10

3. A copy of the above RTI application was also forwarded to the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kollam u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, since the PAN of Smt. Aswini A Sen was under the jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kollam. The CPIO, Kollam also rejected the application vide order dated 26.06.2023, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Girish Ramachandra Deshpande Vs CIC and other (2012) 351 ITR 472 (SC) (copy of order of the CPIO, Kollam, enclosed).

4. The applicant again filed an RTI application before the Nodal Officer & CPIO/JDIT (OSD) (Hqrs) (Admn)-1, Directorate of Income Tax (Systems), New Delhi which was transferred to this office as well as to the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kollam. This application was received in this office on 11.03.2025. This time the RTI application was for providing the following information:

1. Income tax returns filed by his father-in-law, Shri Ashok Sen for the assessment years 2016-17 to 2024-25.

2. Income tax returns field by his wife, Smt. Aswini A Sen for the assessment years 2016-17 to 2024-25.

3. Income tax returns filed by his sister-in-law, Smt. Aiswarya A Sen for the assessment years 2016-17 to 2024-25.

4. Income tax returns filed by his mother-in-law, Smt. Laila for the assessment years 2016-17 to 2024-25.

5. 26 AS document of his wife Smt. Aswini A Sen for the assessment year 2025-26.

5. The undersigned passed an order u/s 7 on 25.03.2025 holding the earlier stand taken by this office in the order u/s 7 dated 190.6.2023 (copy enclosed).

6. The CPIO, ITO, Ward-1, Kollam has also passed order u/s 7 of the RTI Act on 14.03.2025, rejecting the RTI application with respect to the information sought for in the case of the wife of the applicant Smt. Aswini A Sen (copy enclosed)."

5 / 11

5

Page 6 of 10 Decision:

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that the respondents have replies to the RTI application and the first appeal vide letters dated 19.06.2023 and 01.09.2023 respectively. The respondent has denied the information related to Shri Ashok Sen, under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. As regards the information sought about Smt. Aswini A Sen, the respondent CPIO has forwarded the RTI application to the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kollam u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act. The CPIO, Kollam also rejected the application vide order dated 26.06.2023, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Girish Ramachandra Deshpande Vs CIC and other

(2012) 351 ITR 472 (SC).

The appellant in his RTI application, in the first appeal and subsequently in the second appeal failed to establish any larger public interest warranting the disclosure of information sought by him.

The Commission refers to a decision of Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 340/2023 & CM APPL. 1348/2023, Central Public Information Officer vs. Kailash Chandra Moondra, wherein it has been categorically held that the Right to Information Act, 2005 and Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deal with disclosure of information. While the Right to Information Act is a general law concerning the disclosure of information by the public authorities, Section 138 of the Income Tax Act is a special legislation dealing with disclosure of information concerning the assesses. Therefore, the Commission agrees with the stand taken by the Respondent in denying the information on point No. 2 of the RTI application. The relevant extract of the aforesaid Delhi High Court order is reproduced hereinbelow:

"He places reliance upon a Judgment dated 22.01.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 10193/2022 in the case of "CPIO/Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax HQ Exemption, New Delhi vs. Girish Mittal" wherein this Court has observed as under:

15. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, Section 138 (1)(b) and Section 138 (2) of the IT Act which lays down a specific procedure relating to disclosure of information relating to a third party under the IT Act would override 6 / 11

6

Page 7 of 10

Section 22 of the RTI Act. The information sought for by the Respondent herein is clearly covered by Section 138(1)(b) of the IT Act. The satisfaction of Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is, therefore, necessary before such information can be divulged. That satisfaction cannot be abrogated to any other authority under a general Act for divulging the information sought for.

16. The said judgment has been followed by the Apex Court in Rakesh Kumar Gupta

v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 2007 SCC OnLine CIC 315.

17. In Chief Information Commr. v. High Court of Gujarat, (2020) 4 SCC 702, when an issue was raised over furnishing of information of certified copies obtained from the High Court of Gujarat by invoking the provisions of the RTI Act, the Apex Court, while resorting to the Gujarat High Court Rules, has observed as under:

"35. The non obstante clause of the RTI Act does not mean an implied repeal of the High Court Rules and orders framed under Article 225 of the Constitution of India; but only has an overriding effect in case of inconsistency. A special enactment or rule cannot be held to be overridden by a later general enactment simply because the latter opens up with a non obstante clause, unless there is clear inconsistency between the two legislations. In this regard, we may usefully refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka [R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 1 SCC 335: 1992 SCC (L&S) 286] wherein, the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC pp. 356-57, para 38).

"38. In Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India [Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 127: 1984 SCC (L&S) 355], Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as his Lordship then was) observed thus : (SCC p. 153, para 38).

"38. … As mentioned hereinbefore if the Scheme was held to be valid, then the question what the general law is and what is the special law and which law in case of conflict would prevail would have arisen and that would have necessitated the application of the principle "generalia specialibus non derogant". The general rule to be followed in case of conflict between the two statutes is that the later abrogates the earlier one. In other words, a prior special law would yield to a later general law, if either of the two following conditions is satisfied:

"(i) The two are inconsistent with each other.

(ii) There is some express reference in the later to the earlier enactment." 7 / 11

7

Page 8 of 10

If either of these two conditions is fulfilled, the later law, even though general, would prevail.'"

(emphasis supplied)

18. Applying the said analogy to the facts of the present case, Section 138(1)(b) of the IT Act which specifically states that information relating to an assessee can only be supplied subject to the satisfaction of Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, would prevail over Section 22 of the RTI Act.

19. The issue raised herein has been settled by a Bench of three Member Bench of the CIC which, in the opinion of this Court, is binding on the Bench which has passed the impugned order. A Bench of three Commissioners of the CIC in G.R. G.R. Rawal v. Director General Of Income Tax (Investigation)), 2008 SCC OnLine CIC 1008, while considering the very same issue has observed as under:

"15. Thus, both the Right to Information Act, 2005 and Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deal with disclosure of information. While Right to Information Act is a general law concerning the disclosure of information by the public authorities, Section 138 of the Income Tax Act is a special legislation dealing with disclosure of information concerning the assesses. This Commission in "Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. ITAT, decided on 18th September 2007 decided by a Full Bench, has dealt with the issue of applicability of special law to the exclusion of the general law. The Commission has relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in "Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla — AIR 2002 SC 2322". The following two paragraphs from the said decision of the Commission are pertinent and quoted below:

37. A special enactment or Rule, therefore, cannot be held to be overridden by a later general enactment or simply because the latter opens up with a nonobstante clause unless there is clear inconsistency between the two legislations — one which is later in order of time and the other which is a special enactment. This issue came again for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla — AIR 2002 SC 2322 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted with approval the Broom's Legal Maxim in reference to two Latin Maxims in the following words:

"It is then, an elementary Rule that an earlier Act must give place to a later, if the two cannot be reconciled - lex posterior derogate priori - non est novum ut priores leges ad posteriors trahantur (Emphasis supplied) - and one Act may repeal another by express words or by implication; for it is enough if there be words which by necessary implication repeal it. But repeal by implication is never to be favoured, and must not be imputed to the legislature without necessity, or strong reason, to be shown by the party imputing it. It is only effected where the provisions of the later enactment are so inconsistent with, 8 / 11

8

Page 9 of 10

or repugnant to, those of the earlier that the two cannot stand together2; unless the two Acts are so plainly repugnant to each other that effect cannot be given to both at the same time a repeal cannot be implied; and special Acts are not repealed by general Acts unless there be some express reference to the previous legislation, or a necessary inconsistency in the two Acts standing together, which prevents the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant (Emphasis supplied) from being applied. For where there are general words in a later Act capable of reasonable application without being extended to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, then, in the absence of an indication of a particular intention to that effect, the presumption is that the general words were not intended to repeal the earlier and special legislation, or to take away a particular privilege of a particular class of persons."

38. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Apex Court also cited with approval an earlier decision in Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur v. Thakur Manmohan Dey - MANU/SC/0202/1966, in which it was indicated that an earlier special law cannot be held to have been abrogated by mere implication. That being so, the argument regarding implied repeal has to be rejected for both the reasons set out above."

Propriety demanded that the CIC ought to have followed the opinion of the larger Bench, which is binding on it.

8. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed." In view of the above observations made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the Commission is not inclined to intervene in the matter. The appellant is at liberty to make the respondent in array of the party in his case for production of necessary documents in the court of law, if required.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु)

Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित)

(S. Anantharaman)

Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date

9 / 11

9

Page 10 of 10 Copy To:

The FAA, Office of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax , Range-1, 4th Floor, Vasantham Towers,

Thiruvananthapuram - 695005

10 / 11

10

Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 1 / 111 / 11

11