HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 24.11.2014 + W.P.(C) 85/2010 & CM Nos.156/2010 & 5560/2011 NARESH TREHAN ..... Petitioner versus RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ..... Respondent AND + W.P.(C) 251/2010 & CM No.526/2010 AAA PORTFOLIO PVT LTD AND ANR. ..... Petitioners versus RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ..... Respondent AND + W.P.(C) 206/2010 & CM No.392/2010 ESCORTS LTD ..... Petitioner versus RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ..... Respondent AND + W.P.(C) 214/2010 & CM No.445/2010 CPIO CUM ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Petitioner versus RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ..... Respondent AND + W.P.(C) 202/2010 & 389/2010 ESCORTS HEART INSTITUTE AND RESEARCH CENTRE ..... Petitioner W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 1 of 29 versus RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ..... Respondent AND + W.P.(C) 207/2010 & CM No.394/2010 RAJAN NANDA ..... Petitioner versus RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For Petitioners : Mr Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Ms Shyel Trehan and Ms Manjira Dasgupta in W.P.(C) 85/2010. Mr Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr Simran Mehta and Mr Prabhat Kalia in W.P.(C) Nos. 251/2010, 206/2010 & 207/2010. Mr Rohit Puri in W.P.(C) 202/2010. For Respondent : In person. CORAM:- HON BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J 1. These petitions are filed inter alia impugning common order dated 14.12.2009 passed by Central Information Commission (hereafter CIC ) directing Public Information Officers, Commissioner of Income- tax (hereafter PIO ) to provide inspection of records and also other information sought for by respondent relating to income tax returns filed by petitioners (other than petitioner in W.P.(C) No.214 of 2010). W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 2 of 29 2. Brief facts which are relevant for examining controversy in present petitions are that on 13.01.2009, Rakesh Kumar Gupta respondent, who is stated to be informer to income tax department, filed application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter Act ) with PIO inter alia seeking information and all records available with Income tax department in respect of nine assessees (out of said assesses one assessee was deleted due to repetition) for various assessment years. respondent had also sought:- 1. Inspection of all records in above respect. 2. Kindly provide copies of documents mentioned at time of inspection. 3. Kindly provide officers (from assessing officers to CCIT), who are officers to take action on "Tax Evasion Petition" given by me from 1/8/2003 till date. Request 4 If you want to treat above information as third party information and want to send notice to so called third parties inviting their objection, then kindly send complete request to them including all annexure e.g. citing public interest by me due to which information should be given to me. 3. details sought by respondent of eight assessees (hereinafter collectively referred to as assessees ) including details of assessment years are as under:- i) Dr. Naresh Trehan - petitioner in W.P.(C) No.85/2010 pertaining to Assessment Year 1998-99 to 2005-06 W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 3 of 29 ii) Mr. Rajan Nanda - petitioner in W.P.(C) No.207/2010 pertaining to Assessment Year 1998-99 to 2005-06 iii) AAA Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. petitioner in W.P.(C) No.251/2010 pertaining to Assessment Year 1998-99 to 2005-2006 iv) Big Apple Clothing Pvt. Ltd. petitioner in W.P.(C) No.251/2010 pertaining to Assessment Year 1998-99 to 2005-06 v) Escorts Ltd. - petitioner in W.P.(C) No.206/2010 pertaining to Assessment Year 1998-99 to 2005-06. vi) Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Ltd. (Delhi) - petitioner in W.P.(C) No.202/2010 pertaining to Assessment Year 1998-99 to 2001-02. vii) Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Chandigarh (Society) pertaining to Assessment Year (2001-2002) viii) Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Limited, Chandigarh pertaining to Assessment Year 2000-01 to 2005-06. 4. Since information sought by respondent is third party information, Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax issued separate notices dated 04.02.2009 under Section 11(2) of Act to assessees. assessees submitted their separate objections and objected to inspection and furnishing of information. PIO considered objections of assessees and rejected RTI application of respondent, by its common order dated 16.02.2009, on ground that respondent has failed to substantiate public interest involved in disclosing W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 4 of 29 information relating to third parties. PIO, however, held that Tax Evasion Petition is under compilation and would be provided in due course. 5. respondent preferred separate appeals before First Appellate Authority - Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax (hereafter FAA ) against order of PIO. By common order dated 08.05.2009, FAA rejected appeal of respondent. Aggrieved by order dated 08.05.2009 of FAA, respondent preferred appeal before CIC. By impugned order dated 14.12.2009, CIC allowed appeal and directed PIO to provide inspection of records and also other information sought for by respondent. 6. learned counsel for petitioner contended:- 6.1 that information sought for by respondent such as income tax returns are personal information and are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of Act. Reliance was placed on decision of Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commr.: (2013) 1 SCC 212, decision of Full Bench of this Court in Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal & Anr.: 166 (2010) DLT 305 and decision of Full Bench of CIC in G R Rawal v. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation): Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00490, decided on 05.03.2008. 6.2 that disclosure of income tax returns is prohibited under Section 138 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and can be made only if Commissioner is satisfied that disclosure is in public interest, which in present case was rejected by Commissioner. Reference was made to W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 5 of 29 Hanuman Pershadganeriwala v. Director of Inspection, Income Tax, New Delhi: (1974) 10 DLT 96. 6.3 that disclosure of information is also exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of Act as income tax department is holding information of assessees in fiduciary capacity. 6.4 that respondent has failed to disclose public interest which is mandatory requirement under Section 11 of Act for disclosure of confidential and personal third party information. 6.5 that disclosure of information sought for would be violative of right to privacy, which has been read into Article 21 of Constitution of India. Reference was made to paragraph 110 to 112 of decision of this court in Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal & Anr.: 166 (2010) DLT 305. 6.6 that disclosure of income tax returns is expressly forbidden to be published by tribunal, in present case and CIC therefore, exempted under Section 8(1)(b) of Act. 7. respondent contended:- 7.1 that he is informer with income tax department and sought information in public interest in order to recover tax evaded by petitioners, to recover properties mis-appropriated by petitioners and to curb corruption and therefore, exemptions provided under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of Act are not applicable. W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 6 of 29 7.2 that bank details and tax details should be given to public, where prima facie wrong doing is detected by government. Reliance was placed on Ram Jethmalani & Ors. v. Union of India: (2011) 8 SCC 1. 7.3 that activities performed by income tax department are public in nature and income tax records are public documents. Reliance was placed on Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors.: 146 (2008) DLT 385. 7.4 that disclosure of information under Section 3 of Act is rule and exemption under Section 8 of Act is exception. 8. controversy that needs to be addressed is whether income tax returns and information provided to income tax authorities during course of assessment and proceedings thereafter, are exempt under provision Section 8(1) of Act and further whether in given circumstances of this case, CIC was correct in holding that such information was required to be disclosed in public interest. 9. By virtue of Section 3 of Act all citizens have right to information subject to provisions of Act. expression information is defined under Section 2(f) of Act as under:- 2(f) information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by public authority under any other law for time being in force; W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 7 of 29 (emphasis provided) 10. It is also relevant to note that by virtue of Section 22 of Act, provisions of Act have overriding effect over any other inconsistent law or instrument. 11. petitioners have contended that income tax returns and other information provided by assessees during course of assessment would be exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 8(1)(d), Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of Act. It is thus necessary to examine applicability of each of above provisions with respect to information sought by respondent. 12. Section 8(1)(d) of Act expressly provides exemption in respect of such information. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to Section 8(1)(d) of Act which reads as under:- 8. Exemption from disclosure of information. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, disclosure of which would harm competitive position of third party, unless competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants disclosure of such information; 13. Certain petitioners had specifically pleaded that information provided in income tax returns could not be disclosed as information was provided in confidence. CIC rejected same by holding that parties had failed to explain as to how that ground could apply or how W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 8 of 29 disclosure of information relating to commercial confidence would harm their competitive interest. 14. income tax returns filed by assessee and further information that is provided during assessment proceedings may also include confidential information relating to business or affairs of assessee. assessee is expected to truly and fairly disclose particulars relevant for purposes of assessment of income tax. nature of disclosure required is not limited only to information that has been placed by assessee in public domain but would also include information which assessee may consider confidential. As matter of illustration, one may consider case of manufacturer who manufactures and deals in multiple products for supplies to different agencies. In normal course, Assessing Officer would require assessee to disclose profit margins on sales of such products. Such information would clearly disclose pricing policy of assessee and public disclosure of this information may clearly jeopardise bargaining power available to assessee since data as to costs would be available to all agencies dealing with assessee. It is, thus, essential that information relating to business affairs, which is considered to be confidential by assessee must remain so, unless it is necessary in larger public interest to disclose same. If nature of information is such that disclosure of which may have propensity of harming one s competitive interests, it would not be necessary to specifically show as to how disclosure of such information would, in fact, harm competitive interest of third party. In order to test applicability of Section 8(1)(d) of Act it is necessary to first and W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 9 of 29 foremost determine nature of information and if nature of information is confidential information relating to affairs of private entity that is not obliged to be placed in public domain, then it is necessary to consider whether its disclosure can possibly have adverse effect on third parties. 15. Insofar as applicability of Section 8(1)(e) of Act is concerned, I am unable to accept contention that fiduciary relationship within meaning of Section 8(1)(e) of Act can be attributed to relationship between assessee and income tax authority. Supreme Court in case of CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay: (2011) 8 SCC 497 had explained that words information available to person in its fiduciary relationship could not be construed in wide sense but has to be considered in normal and recognized sense. relevant extract of said decision is quoted below:- "41. In philosophical and very wide sense, examining bodies can be said to act in fiduciary capacity, with reference to students who participate in examination, as Government does while governing its citizens or as present generation does with reference to future generation while preserving environment. But words information available to person in his fiduciary relationship are used in Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act in its normal and well-recognised sense, that is, to refer to persons who act in fiduciary capacity, with reference to specific beneficiary or beneficiaries who are to be expected to be protected or benefited by actions of fiduciary trustee with reference to beneficiary of trust, guardian with reference to minor/physically infirm/mentally challenged, parent with reference to child, lawyer or chartered accountant with reference to client, doctor or nurse with reference to patient, agent with W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 10 of 29 reference to principal, partner with reference to another partner, Director of company with reference to shareholder, executor with reference to legatee, Receiver with reference to parties to lis, employer with reference to confidential information relating to employee, and employee with reference to business dealings/transaction of employer. We do not find that kind of fiduciary relationship between examining body and examinee, with reference to evaluated answer books, that come into custody of examining body." 16. information provided by assessee in its income tax return is in compliance of provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus, could not be stated to be information provided in course of fiduciary relationship. 17. Four of petitioners (Dr Naresh Trehan, Escorts Heart Institute and Research Center, Delhi, Escorts Heard Institute and Research Center, Chandigarh and Escorts Heart Institute and Research Center Ltd.) had further contended that information sought by respondent was exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of Act. Section 8(1)(j) of Act exempts information which relates to personal information. said clause is quoted below for ready reference:- 8. Exemption from disclosure of information. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (j) information which relates to personal information disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individual unless Central W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 11 of 29 Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or appellate authority, as case may be, is satisfied that larger public interest justifies disclosure of such information: 18. question whether information provided by individual in his income tax returns is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of Act is no longer res integra in view of decision of Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commr.: (2013) 1 SCC 212. relevant extract of said judgment is quoted below: 11. petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show-cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to third respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also details of his investments, lending and borrowing from banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for details of gifts stated to have been accepted by third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at marriage of his son. information mostly sought for finds place in income tax returns of third respondent. question that has come up for consideration is: whether abovementioned information sought for qualifies to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of RTI Act. 12. We are in agreement with CIC and courts below that details called for by petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to third respondent, show-cause notices and orders of censure/punishment, etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of RTI Act. performance of employee/officer in organization is primarily matter between employee and employer and normally those aspects are governed by service rules which fall under expression personal information , disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 12 of 29 public interest. On other hand, disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in given case, if Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or appellate authority is satisfied that larger public interest justifies disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but petitioner cannot claim those details as matter of right. 13. details disclosed by person in his income tax returns are personal information which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of RTI Act, unless involves larger public interest and Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or appellate authority is satisfied that larger public interest justifies disclosure of such information. 14. petitioner in instant case has not made bona fide public interest in seeking information, disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individual under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. 19. CIC rejected aforesaid contention by holding that expression personal information would necessarily only apply to individual and could not be applicable in case of corporate entities. 20. It has been contended by petitioners that expression personal information must also extend to information relating to corporate entities. Inasmuch as they may also fall within definition of expression person under General Clauses Act, 1897 as well as under Income Tax Act, 1961. However, I am unable to accept this contention for reason that expression personal information as used in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of Act has to be read in context of information relating to individual. plain reading of aforesaid clause would indicate that W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 13 of 29 expression personal information is linked with invasion of privacy of individual . use of word before word individual immediately links same with expression personal information 21. Black s law dictionary, sixth edition, inter alia, defines word personal as under:- "The word personal means appertaining to person; belonging to individual; limited to person; having nature or partaking of qualities of human beings, or of movable property." 22. perusal of above definition also indicates that ordinary usage of word personal is in context of individual human being and not corporate entity. U.S. Supreme Court has also interpreted expression personal to be used in context of individual human being and not corporate entity. In case of Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T Inc: 2011 US LEXIS 1899 US Supreme Court considered meaning of expression personal privacy in context of Freedom of Information Act, which required Federal Agencies to make certain records and documents publically available on request. Such disclosure was exempt if records could reasonably be expected to constitute unwarranted invasion of personal privacy . U.S. Supreme Court held that expression Personal used in aforesaid context could not be extended to corporations because word personal ordinarily refers to individuals. Court held that expression personal must be given its ordinary meaning. relevant extract of said judgment is as under: W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 14 of 29 Person is defined term in statute; personal is not. When statute does not define term, we typically give phrase its ordinary meaning. Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. ___, ___, 559 U.S. 133, 130 S. Ct. 1265, 176 L. Ed. 2d 1, 8 (2010). Personal ordinarily refers to individuals. We do not usually speak of personal characteristics, personal effects, personal correspondence, personal influence, or personal tragedy as referring to corporations or other artificial entities. This is not to say that corporations do not have correspondence, influence, or tragedies of their own, only that we do not use word personal to describe them. Certainly, if chief executive officer of corporation approached chief financial officer and said, I have something personal to tell you, we would not assume CEO was about to discuss company business. Responding to request for information, individual might say, that's personal. company spokesman, when asked for information about company, would not. In fact, we often use word personal to mean precisely opposite of business-related: We speak of personal expenses and business expenses, personal life and work life, personal opinion and company's view. Dictionaries also suggest that personal does not ordinarily relate to artificial persons such as corporations. See, e.g., 7 OED 726 (1933) ( [1] [o]f, pertaining to . . . individual person or self, individual; private; one's own, [3] [o]f or pertaining to one's person, body, or figure, [5] [o]f, pertaining to, or characteristic of person or self-conscious being, as opposed to thing or abstraction ); 11 OED at 599-600 (2d ed. 1989) (same); Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1686 (1976) ( [3] relating to person or body ; [4] relating to individual, his character, conduct, motives, or private affairs ; [5] relating to or characteristic of human beings as distinct from things ); ibid. (2002) (same)." W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 15 of 29 23. In my view, aforesaid reasoning would also be applicable to expression personal used in Section 8(1)(j) of Act. expression individual must be construed in expansive sense and would include body of individuals. said exemption would be available even to unincorporated entities as also private, closely held undertaking which are in substance alter egos of their shareholders. However, expression individual cannot be used as synonym for expression person . Under General Clauses Act, 1897 person is defined to include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not . Thus, whereas person would include individual as well as incorporated entities and artificial persons, expression individual cannot be interpreted to include such entities. context in which, expression personal information is used would also exclude it application to large widely held corporations. While, confidential information of corporation is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of Act, there is no scope to exclude other information relating to such corporations under Section 8(1)(j) of Act as concept of personal information cannot in ordinary language be understood to mean information pertaining to public corporation. 24. It would also be relevant to refer to decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Ashok Kumar Goel v. Public Information Officer Vat Ward No. 64 & Anr.: (2012) 188 DLT 597 whereby it was held that information of returns made to Sales Tax Commissioner in relation to firm was exempt under Section 8(1) of Act. relevant portion of said judgment is quoted as under:- W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 16 of 29 7. It is not in dispute that information in form of returns filed by respondent No. 2's firm is in nature of commercial confidence which is clearly inferable from Section 98 of Act. Such information can be given only if larger public interest warrants disclosure of this information. All authorities below including learned Single Judge has held and rightly so that no public interest is at all involved in seeking of this information by appellant from Sales Tax Commissioner. What to talk of public interest, finding is that information is sought with oblique motive to settle personal scores. 25. Indisputably, Section 8(1)(j) of Act would be applicable to information pertaining to Dr Naresh Trehan (petitioner in W.P.(C) 88/2010) and information contained in income tax returns would be personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of Act. However, CIC directed disclosure of information of Dr Trehan also by concluding that income tax returns and information provided for assessment was in relation to public activity. In my view, this is wholly erroneous and unmerited. act of filing returns with department cannot be construed as public activity. expression public activity would mean activities of public nature and not necessarily act done in compliance of statute. expression public activity would denote activity done for public and/or in some manner available for participation by public or some section of public. There is no public activity involved in filing return or individual pursuing his assessment with income tax authorities. In this view, information relating to individual assesse could not be disclosed. Unless, CIC held that same was justified in larger public interest W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 17 of 29 26. At this stage, it may be appropriate to consider nature of information that is provided by assesse to its Assessing Officer. In case of Income from business and profession, income tax returns mainly disclose final accounts (i.e. profit and loss account and balance sheets) This information is otherwise also liable to be disclosed by companies and is available in public domain since it is necessary for company to file its annual accounts with Registrar of Companies. Other incorporated entities are similarly required to also publically disclose their final accounts. However, Assessing Officer may call for further information while determining assessable income, which may include all books and papers maintained by entity. Such information may also have information relating to other parties, disclosure of which may be exempt under Section 8(1) of Act. As matter of illustration, books of accounts would record transactions of commercial nature which may enjoin parties to transactions to keep information confidential. Further, books of accounts would also record salaries and other payments to other individuals. Disclosure of such information would affect not just assessee but also other parties. In circumstances, it would be necessary to examine details of information that are sought from public authority. In present case, respondent seems to have sought for omnibus disclosure of all records and returns. In my view, same could not be allowed without examining nature of information contained therein. 27. Supreme Court in case of Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. and others v. State of Kerala and others: Civil Appeal No. 9017 of 2013, W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 18 of 29 decided on 07.10.2013. considered question whether society registered would fall within definition of public authority under Section 2(h) of Act. Court also clearly stated that information supplied by society to Registrar of Societies could be disclosed except for information that was exempt under Section 8(1) of Act and that included accounts maintained by members of society. relevant passage from said judgment is quoted below:- "52. Registrar of Cooperative Societies functioning under Cooperative Societies Act is public authority within meaning of Section 2(h) of Act. As public authority, Registrar of Co-operative Societies has been conferred with lot of statutory powers under respective Act under which he is functioning. He is also duty bound to comply with obligations under RTI Act and furnish information to citizen under RTI Act. Information which he is expected to provide is information enumerated in Section 2(f) of RTI Act subject to limitations provided under Section 8 of Act. Registrar can also, to extent law permits, gather information from Society, on which he has supervisory or administrative control under Cooperative Societies Act. Consequently, apart from information as is available to him, under Section 2(f), he can also gather those information from Society, to extent permitted by law. Registrar is also not obliged to disclose those information if those information fall under Section 8(1)(j) of Act. No provision has been brought to our knowledge indicating that, under Cooperative Societies Act, Registrar can call for details of bank accounts maintained by citizens or members in cooperative bank . Only those information which Registrar of Cooperative Societies can have access under Cooperative Societies Act from Society could be said to be information which is held or under control of public authority . Even those information, Registrar, as already indicated, is not legally obliged to provide if those information falls under exempted W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 19 of 29 category mentioned in Section 8(j) of Act. Apart from Registrar of Co-operative Societies, there may be other public authorities who can access information from Co-operative Bank of private account maintained by member of Society under law, in event of which, in given situation, society will have to part with that information. But demand should have statutory backing. 53. Consequently, information which has been sought for relates to personal information, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individual, Registrar of Cooperative Societies, even if he has got that information, is not bound to furnish same to applicant, unless he is satisfied that larger public interest justifies disclosure of such information, that too, for reasons to be recorded in writing." 28. It is apparent that information submitted by assessee in course of assessment, may also include information relating to other persons. exclusions available under Section 8(1) of Act, would also be available in respect of that information. 29. Section 137 of Income Tax Act, 1961 provided that information furnished by assessee was confidential and was not liable to be disclosed. Section 137 of Income Tax Act, 1961 was deleted by Finance Act, 1964 and simultaneously, Section 138 Income Tax Act, 1961 was substituted. Section 138 of Income Tax Act, 1961 is quoted below:- 138. Disclosure of information respecting assessees.- (1)(a) Board or any other income-tax authority specified by it by general or special order in this behalf may furnish or cause to be furnished to- W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 20 of 29 (i) any officer, authority or body performing any functions under any law relating to imposition of any tax, duty or cess, or to dealings in foreign exchange as defined in clause (n) of section 2 of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999); or (ii) such officer, authority or body performing functions under any other law as Central Government may, if in its opinion it is necessary so to do in public interest, specify by notification in Official Gazette in this behalf, any such information received or obtained by any income- tax authority in performance of his functions under this Act, as may, in opinion of Board or other income-tax authority, be necessary for purpose of enabling officer, authority or body to perform his or its functions under that law. (b) Where person makes application to Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in prescribed form for any information relating to any assessee received or obtained by any income-tax authority in performance of his functions under this Act, Chief Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that it is in public interest so to do, furnish or cause to be furnished information asked for and his decision in this behalf shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court of law. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or any other law for time being in force, Central Government may, having regard to practices and usages customary or any other relevant factors, by order notified in Official Gazette, direct that no information or document shall be furnished or produced by public servant in respect of such matters relating to such class of assessees or except to such authorities as may be specified in order. W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 21 of 29 30. In case of Hanuman Pershad (supra), this Court considered question whether there was any bar on Income Tax Department from disclosing records produced during assessment proceedings. said controversy was answered by following words:- It is undoubtedly open to authorities to disclose information received by them from assessments or other proceedings under Act. However, there are restrictions contained in Section 138 as now existing concerning manner in which that information is to be disclosed. Leaving aside sub-clause (a) of sub-section (1) it seems that under sub- clause (b), Commissioner can disclose information if he is satisfied that it is within public interest to do so. Hence, if some other authority applies to Commissioner to obtain information, same may be disclosed in discretion of Commissioner. Under Sub-clause (a) there is also power to furnish information to other authorities. As this matter has not been fully argued or discussed in present case, it is sufficient to note that there is no power to disclose information to other authorities and officers outside provisions of Section. As far as information already given is concerned, we have no power to give any direction concerning same. 31. Although by virtue of Section 22 of Act, provisions of Act have overriding effect over any other inconsistent law, said provisions of Act insofar as they are not inconsistent with other statutes must be read harmoniously. Undoubtedly, income tax returns and information provided to Income Tax Authorities by assessees is confidential and not required to be placed in public domain. Given nature of income tax returns and information necessary to support same, it would be exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of Act in respect of individual and unincorporated assessees. information as disclosed in W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 22 of 29 income tax returns would qualify as personal information with regard to several private companies which are, essentially, alter egos of their promoters. However, in cases of widely held companies most information relating to their income and expenditure would be in public domain and confidential information would be exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of Act. Further, even in cases of corporate entities, income tax returns and other disclosure made to authorities would also include transactions with other parties and those parties can also claim exception under Section 8(1) of Act. One has to also bear in mind that authority may not have any obligation to provide any information other than in form in which it is available and information provided by assessee may not have been edited to remove references to other persons. Keeping all aforesaid considerations in view, parliament has enacted Section 138 of Income Tax Act, 1961 to provide for disclosure only where it is necessary in public interest. Similar provisions are enacted under Act and clauses (d), (e) and (j) of Section 8(1) of Act that specify that information exempt from disclosure under those clauses, could be disclosed in larger public interest. Section 8(2) of Act also provides for non obstante clause which permits disclosure of information in larger public interest. 32. It would also be necessary to refer to Section 11 of Act, which provides for notice to third party before any third party information is disclosed. proviso to Section 11 of Act also specifies that disclosure of trade or commercial secrets, which are protected by law W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 23 of 29 would not be allowed unless their disclosure is necessary in public interest. Section 11(1) of Act reads as under:- "11. Third party information. (1) Where Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as case may be, shall, within five days from receipt of request, give written notice to such third party of request and of fact that Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as case may be, intends to disclose information or record, or part thereof, and invite third party to make submission in writing or orally, regarding whether information should be disclosed, and such submission of third party shall be kept in view while taking decision about disclosure of information: Provided that except in case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to interests of such third party." 33. In above context where nature of income tax returns and other information provided for assessment of income is confidential and its disclosure is protected under Income Tax Act, 1961 it is not necessary to read any inconsistency between Act and Income Tax Act, 1961. And, information furnished by assesse can be disclosed only where it is necessary to do in public interest and where such interest outweighs in importance, any possible harm or injury to assesse or any other third party. However, information furnished by corporate assessees that neither W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 24 of 29 relates to another party nor is exempt under Section 8(1)(d) of Act, can be disclosed. 34. In view of aforesaid, principal question that is to be addressed is whether CIC has misdirected itself in concluding that disclosure of income tax returns and other information relating to assessment of income of petitioners was in public interest. 35. In order to address this controversy, it is important to understand purpose of respondent in seeking such information. proceedings under Income Tax Act, 1961 with respect to assessment of income are at different stages. It is stated that in some cases, assessment is complete and appeal proceedings are pending in other fora. In one case, it is contended that Appellate Authorities have remanded matter of assessment to Assessing Officer. It is apparent that assessment proceedings have thrown up contentious issues which are being agitated between income tax authorities and assessees. respondent, essentially, wants to intervene in those proceedings by adding and providing his contentions or interpretation as to information provided by asseesees or otherwise available with Income Tax Authorities. 36. In my view, CIC has misdirected itself in concluding that this was in larger public interest. CIC arrived at this conclusion by noting that disclosure of information was in larger public interest in increasing public revenue and reducing corruption. assessment proceedings are not public proceedings where all and sundry are allowed to participate and add their opinion to proceedings. Merely because spirited citizen W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 25 of 29 wishes to assist in assessment proceedings, same cannot be stated to be in larger public interest. On contrary, larger public interest would require that assessment proceedings are completed expeditiously and by authorities who are statutorily empowered to do so. 37. In present case, there was no material to indicate that there was any corruption on part of income tax authorities which led to justifiable apprehension that said authorities were not performing their function diligently. In any event, CIC has not found that proceedings relating to assessment were not being conducted in accordance with law and/or required intervention of respondent. Assessment proceedings are quasi-judicial proceedings where assessee has to produce material to substantiate their return of income. Income tax has to be assessed by income tax authorities strictly in accordance with Income Tax Act, 1961 and based on information sought by them. In present case, respondent wants to process information to assist and support role of Assessing Officer. This has propensity of interfering in assessment proceedings and thus, cannot be considered to be in larger public interest. CIC had proceeded on basis that income tax authorities should disclose information to informers of income tax departments to enable them to bring instances of tax evasion to notice of income tax authorities. In my view, this reasoning is flawed as it would tend to subvert assessment process rather than aid it. If this idea is carried to its logical end, it would enable several busy bodies to interfere in assessment proceedings and throw up their interpretation of law and facts as to how assessment ought to be carried out. propensity of this to W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 26 of 29 multiply litigation cannot be underestimated. Further, proposition that unrelated parties could intervene in assessment proceedings is wholly alien to Income Tax Act, 1961. income tax returns and information are provided in aid of proceedings that are conducted under that Act and there is no scope for enhancing or providing for additional dimension to assessment proceedings. 38. Supreme Court in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 held that statutory exemption provided under Section 8 of Act is rule and only in exceptional circumstances of larger public interest information would be disclosed. It was also held that public purpose needs to be interpreted in strict sense and public interest has to be construed keeping in mind balance between right to privacy and right to information. relevant extract from said judgment is quoted below: 21. ...... Another very significant provision of Act is Section 8(1)(j). In terms of this provision, information which relates to personal information, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individual would fall within exempted category, unless authority concerned is satisfied that larger public interest justifies disclosure of such information. It is, therefore, to be understood clearly that it is statutory exemption which must operate as rule and only in exceptional cases would disclosure be permitted, that too, for reasons to be recorded demonstrating satisfaction to test of larger public interest. It will not be in consonance with spirit of these provisions, if in mechanical manner, directions are passed by appropriate authority to disclose information which may be protected in terms of above provisions. All information which has come W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 27 of 29 to notice of or on record of person holding fiduciary relationship with another and but for such capacity, such information would not have been provided to that authority, would normally need to be protected and would not be open to disclosure keeping higher standards of integrity and confidentiality of such relationship. Such exemption would be available to such authority or department. 22. expression public interest has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to relevant provisions of Act. expression public interest must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of statutory exemption in terms of Act. In its common parlance, expression public interest , like public purpose , is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from statute in which it occurs, concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh [AIR 1952 SC 252] ). It also means general welfare of public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which public as whole has stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]. 23. satisfaction has to be arrived at by authorities objectively and consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to circumstances of given case. decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in provision. Certain matters, particularly in relation to appointment, are required to be dealt with great confidentiality. information may come to knowledge of authority as result of disclosure by others who give that information in confidence and with complete faith, integrity and fidelity. Secrecy of such information shall be maintained, thus, bringing it within ambit of fiduciary capacity. Similarly, there may be cases where disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individual. All these protections have to be given their W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 28 of 29 due implementation as they spring from statutory exemptions. It is not decision simpliciter between private interest and public interest. It is matter where constitutional protection is available to person with regard to right to privacy. Thus, public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind balance factor between right to privacy and right to information with purpose sought to be achieved and purpose that would be served in larger public interest, particularly when both these rights emerge from constitutional values under Constitution of India. 39. Applying aforesaid judgment to facts of this case, it is apparent that disclosure of information as directed has no discernable element of larger public interest. 40. Accordingly, petitions are allowed and impugned order is set aside. parties are left to bear their own costs. VIBHU BAKHRU, J NOVEMBER 24, 2014 RK W.P.(C) Nos. 85/2010 & other connected matters Page 29 of 29 Naresh Trehan v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta