CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.308, BWing,
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Appellant : Sandeep Kamra
Respondent : Income Tax Department, New Delhi
Date of hearing : 12.6.2013
Date of decision : 12.6.2013
Heard today dated 12.6.13. Appellant present. The Public Authority is
represented by Shri Subhash Chand, ITO 27(4)
2. The appellant submits that he is having some marital problems. His wife
has filed a criminal case against him for harassment for dowry which is pending
trial. In the RTI application dated 25.2.12, the appellant had sought the following
information with regard to the notice issued u/s 148 of Income Tax Act against Shri
Ramesh Chander Chopra, his father in law:
“1. Whether the notice u/s 148 still subsists or not and if not why the
same has been cancelled.
2. Action taken report on notice issued u/s 148
3. All statements of Shri Ramesh Chander Chopra and his family
members in regard to notice issued u/s 148.
4. Detailed report on amount of tax recovered from Shri Ramesh
Chander Chopra in regard to notice issued u/s 148.
5. Documents given by Shri Ramesh Chander Chopra in regard to
notice issued u/s 148.
6. Copy of ITR of Shri Ramesh Chander Chopra from year 2000 to till
7. Whether income tax was recovered on following income or not:a)
Istridhan list of more than Rs.63 lakhs.
b) 2 Kg gold given on her daughter’s Samriti marriage.
c) Shri Ramesh Chander Chopra on her elder daughter Mrs Preeti
Verma’s marriage given Car number DL9CP8118 registered on 12 Dec.2006 other
than items mentioned in point a and b. This marriage took place just 11 months
before my marriage with Shri Chopra’s younger daughter Samriti.
d) Income from following businesses:
i) Chopra Printers
ii) Chopra Boutique
iii) Chopra Mother Dairy
iv) Chopra Readymade Garments
v) Chopra Properties and Amber Finance
vi) Phulka Times
vii) naeem Hardware
e) Lakhs of rupees of FDs and insurance plan bought from Chopra
f) Whether Shri Chopra has submitted agreement to sale or registry
papers of property sold? If agreement to sale then whether ITO has enquired
about registry papers of those properties as well as verified them from appropriate
authorities. Wherefrom Shri Chopra got money to buy so many properties?
Above required information is public information and must be provided to
undersigned which is proved from following:
1) IBN Khabar news channel reported that on complaint of son in law in
income tax against father in law, Father in law has to be pay 2, 21,000 tax on 13
lakh Istridhan list. Complete story can be seen on
2) As per CIC judgement CIC/LS/A/2010/001044/DS, CPIO was directed to
furnish the information pertaining to the net taxable income of Shri Munna Lal
Saini, the father in law of the appellant for the period of year 2000 till 15.9.09 (i.e.
the date of the appellant’s RTI application.
3) As per CIC judgement CIC/MA/A/2006/00108, CPIO was directed to
furnish wife TEP details to husband.”
3. Vide letter dated 4.4.12, CPIO had refused to disclose this information u/s
8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. On appeal, FAA had upheld the order of the CPIO.
4. The present appeal is directed against the above order.
5. I have heard the parties and perused the material on record. Shri Subhash
Chand submits that the status of the proceedings initiated against the appellant’s
father in law u/s 148 of the IT Act has already been intimated to the appellant.
However, the balance information can not be supplied, this being personal
information of the assessee Ramesh Chander Chopra.
6. Suffice it to say that the appellant has sought information which is personal
to Shri R.C.Chopra. Personal information can be disclosed only in larger public
interest. The appellant has not been able to establish any such public interest.
Hence, the information sought by the appellant is not disclosable to him under the
RTI Act. Even so, going by the version of the appellant that his wife has filed a
false case against him alleging that her father gave dowry of more than Rs.63
lakhs at the time of the wedding in 2007 and that he is facing a totally false
criminal prosecution in this regard. In my opinion, it would be fit and proper to
direct the CPIO to disclose the amount of net taxable income declared by Shri
R.C.Chopra in his Income Tax Return for FYs 20062007,
It is made clear that only statistical information is required to be provided.
No additional information whatsoever will be provided to the appellant.
7. This order to be complied with in 4 weeks time.
Authenticated true copy . Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the
charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
Address of parties
1. The CPIO & ITO
Income Tax Office
New Delhi 2
2. Shri Sandeep Kamra
New Delhi 110 018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION