R.K. MAHAJAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
CWP/9205/2013HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01097205201317 October 2016Bench: MR. JUSTICE A.B. CHAUDHARI4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petitions have been rendered infructuous. This decision was based on the fact that the assessee had availed her legal remedy against the assessment order passed on the basis of the complaint furnished by the petitioner. The court noted that the assessee's appeal against the assessment order, which was based on the petitioner's complaint, had been allowed. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the land in question was agricultural land and not urban land, and therefore not a taxable asset under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The court also observed that the petitioner had not appeared before it on multiple occasions, and the respondent's stand that the information had already been supplied was justified in light of the subsequent developments. No specific finding was given on the applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, as the petitions were disposed of on the ground of being infructuous.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, R.K. Mahajan, sought information regarding the income tax assessment of Smt. Sonia Atam Sudhir Kumar for assessment year 2008-09 and Wealth Tax Act notices for assessment years 2003-06 concerning urban land claimed as exempt. The assessee objected, citing privacy under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The authority declined the request. The first appeal was dismissed, noting a previous CIC order that premature information could jeopardize investigations. The second appeal was also dismissed. The respondent stated information had been supplied. The assessee had filed objections against an assessment order based on the petitioner's complaint, which was later allowed on appeal, holding the land was not urban land. The High Court noted the petitioner's non-appearance and disposed of the writ petitions as infructuous.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the disclosure of personal financial information of an assessee, sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005, is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) on the grounds of privacy and lack of public interest. Assessee's Contention (Implicit in the authority's decision and first appeal): The information sought is personal financial information, unrelated to public activity, and its disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, thus exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Revenue's Contention (Implicit in the authority's decision and first appeal): Disclosure of information at a premature stage could jeopardize ongoing investigations and be detrimental to departmental action. The Central Information Commissioner's order dated 29.12.2010 was relied upon to support this. 2. Whether the writ petitions have become infructuous given the subsequent developments in the assessee's appeal against the assessment order. Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 8(1)(j),Section 17(1),Section 2(ea)(5),Section 61

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP Nos.7170, 9205 and 9206 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, AT CHANDIGARH 202/203/204 CWP Nos.7170, 9205 and 9206 of 2013 Decided on : 17.10.2016 R.K.Mahajan ... Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Central Public Information Officer (RTI Cell) and others .. Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present : None for the parties. G.S.Sandhawalia,

J. (Oral)

Case has been called twice but none has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. On the last three occasions also, none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner. This order shall dispose of all the aforesaid writ petitions by a common order as they have a common judgment. The relevant facts have taken from CWP-7170-2013. As per order dated 21.03.2014, stand of the respondent was that information as sought, has already been supplied to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner had taken time to file replication but the same has not been done so far. Petitioner seeks information as mentioned in his application dated 16.05.2011 (Annexure P/1) which relates to one, Smt.Sonia Atam Sudhir Kumar 2016.10.19 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

CWP Nos.7170, 9205 and 9206 of 2013 2 Dev (hereinafter known as the Assessee) along with her Income Tax Assessment for the assessment year 2008-09 after making inquiries and investigations as per the report of the petitioner. Similarly, notices under Section 17(1) of the Wealth Tax Act for the assessment year 2003-04 to 2005-06 were issued in the month of March, 2010. The information sought to be ascertained was as to whether urban land worth five crores of rupees claimed by the Assessee as exempt from Wealth Tax had been brought to tax or not. The said assessee had filed objections regarding disclosure of her information on the ground that the information as sought is entirely her personal financial information, disclosure of which has no relationship with public activity and providing of information will cause unwanted invasion of her privacy. Providing of her information to the stranger, was squarely exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The authority, accordingly, declined the request on 17.06.2011 (Annexure P/2), of the petitioner while disposing of the application. The first appeal was dismissed by noticing that the Central Information Commissioner vide its order dated 29.12.2010 had held that broad information be provided to the appellant whether the inputs, provided by him, were found to be true partially true or untrue after the completion of the enquiry/investigation since premature furnishing of information would jeopardize action being taken by the department and would be detrimental to the investigation in progress. Sudhir Kumar 2016.10.19 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

CWP Nos.7170, 9205 and 9206 of 2013 3 Resultantly, the first appeal was also disposed of, in the same terms. The Central Information Commission also accordingly disposed of the second appeal in the same terms. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed. In the written statement, it has been averred that after taking cognizance of the complaint, enquiry proceeding under the Wealth Tax Act 1957 were initiated and assessment had been made for the assessment year 2003-04 and it was held that the agricultural land which fell within the Municipal Limits of Kapurthala was an asset as per the provisions of Section 2(ea) (5) read with explanation 1(b) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The appeal had been filed by the said assessee which was allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jalandhar holding that the agriculture land of the assessee as per the record of the Government and use for agricultural purposes in not to be treated as Urban Land and consequently, a taxable asset under the provisions of Section 2(ea) (5) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 in view of the amended provision of section 61 of Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 1.4.1993. Keeping in view the above, it is apparent that the stand taken by the respondent on earlier occasion dated 21.03.2014 that the information stood supplied, is well justified. As noticed, none has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner thereafter. Keeping in view the fact that assessee had opted for availing her legal remedy against the assessment order passed on the basis of complaint furnished by the Sudhir Kumar 2016.10.19 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

CWP Nos.7170, 9205 and 9206 of 2013 4 petitioner, the present writ petitions are disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. Photocopy of the order be placed on the files of other connected cases. [ G.S.Sandhawalia ] Judge 17.10.2016

sd Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No Sudhir Kumar 2016.10.19 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 17(1)

All 90 judgments and leading authorities on Section 17(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →