R.K. Mahajan V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Central Public Information Officer (RTI Cell) and others

CWP/9206/2013

AI Insights

The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by R.K. Mahajan against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Central Public Information Officer (RTI Cell) and others, concerning the disclosure of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner sought information related to the income tax assessment and wealth tax exemptions claimed by Smt. Sonia Atam Sudhir Kumar for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2003-04 to 2005-06, respectively. The information was initially denied on the grounds of privacy and irrelevance to public activity. Subsequent appeals were also dismissed, and the information was deemed to be already provided. The court's decision to dispose of the petitions as infructuous was based on the absence of appearance by the petitioner and the legal remedies already availed by the assessee against the assessment orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 794192 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Right to Information Act, 2005, Wealth Tax Act, 1957
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Keywords: Public activity; Right to Information; Wealth Tax; Privacy; Personal Financial Information
• Section: 17(1); 61; 8(1)(j); 2(ea)(5)

Judgement Text

"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 "