RTI filed Seeking Request for Wife’s PAN and ITRs: CIC dismisses Complaint u/s 18, says no No Mala Fide Delay in RTI Reply [Read Order]
The Commission of Vinod Kumar Tiwari held that the complaint under Section 18 could only be entertained where there was mala fide denial or unreasonable obstruction of information.
PAN - ITR - Application - Taxscan
PAN - ITR - Application - Taxscan
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has dismissed a complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, wherein the applicant sought copies of his wife’s PAN application, Income Tax Returns (ITRs), and notices issued by the Income Tax Department.
The complainant argued that the information should be disclosed as the individual concerned was his legally wedded wife.
The RTI application was originally filed on 28 July 2020, addressed to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur. The applicant requested certified copies of his wife’s PAN application, all ITRs filed till date, and departmental notices issued to her along with responses. He specifically asked the authority not to invoke Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, citing a previous CIC ruling where spousal information had been considered disclosable.
How to Audit Public Charitable Trusts under the Income Tax Act Click Here
The CPIO responded on 5 March 2024, noting that the application had already been manually transferred to the concerned CPIO (Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Kanpur) on 14 August 2020. The matter was considered under third-party provisions, and the wife had expressly refused consent for disclosure. Accordingly, the CPIO denied the information.
Aggrieved, the complainant alleged that the authorities had delayed updating the RTI status online by nearly three years and sought penal action under Section 20 of the RTI Act. He requested compensation for the alleged delay, claiming violation of Section 7(1).
During the hearing, the respondent officers clarified that the original RTI was transferred and decided within the statutory 30-day period, with the First Appellate Authority (FAA) dismissing the appeal in November 2020, and the CIC upholding the denial in May 2022. They submitted that the complainant was aware of these developments and the delayed online status update did not affect the substance of the proceedings.
Know Practical Aspects of Tax Planning, Click Here
The Commission of Vinod Kumar Tiwari held that the complaint under Section 18 could only be entertained where there was mala fide denial or unreasonable obstruction of information. The commission observed the Supreme Court’s ruling in CIC v. State of Manipur (2011) and stated that Section 18 has a supervisory character, whereas an aggrieved party must seek redressal through the appellate route under Section 19.
It was also noted that the Delhi High Court’s judgment in ROC v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg (2012), which clarified that penalty under Section 20 is not automatic and arises only in cases of mala fide or deliberate obstruction.
The CIC found that the CPIO had provided a lawful response, sought third-party consent, and denied disclosure in accordance with Section 8(1)(j). It further noted that the complainant suppressed the fact that both the FAA and CIC had already dismissed his appeals arising from the same RTI.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
