I-T returns not confidential: Official

Politicos I-T returns not confidential: Official
June 16, 2011
Deccan chroncile
June 15: Contrary to the common reasons cited to reject applications under the RTI Act for copies of I-T returns of assessees, a central public information officer (CPIO) attached to the chief commissioner of income tax said that the Income Tax Act has no provision to treat the returns filed by assessee as confidential. The I-T department had refused to disclose I-T returns filed by assessee including politicians stating that it is “private information”, “confidential or third party information”, “covered under fiduciary relationship”, “unwarranted invasion of privacy” and “does not involve public interest”.

The PIO stated this in reply to a RTI petition filed by a city-based activist C. Selvaraj. To a query on fiduciary relationship between officials of IT department and assessee, the PIO said, “There is no direct definition for “fiduciary relations” in I-T Act. The information relating to assessees can be supplied as per section 138 of I-T Act. Any authority that contravenes the section 138 in giving information is punishable under section 280 of the I-T Act. Further information respecting assessee is published as per section 287 of the act.”

The RTI Act clearly states that all the information, which cannot be denied to the State Legislature or the Parliament, shall not be denied to any person. When asked whether the IT department would provide the IT returns of assessee to the Parliament or the Assembly or not, the CPIO said, “The department is duty bound to supply any information sought by the legislative authorities such as the Parliament.” Right to information activist V. Gopalakrishnan, who unsuccessfully filed petitions seeking returns of various Tamil Nadu politicians including former chief minister M. Karunanidhi, former telecom minister A. Raja and Rajya Sabha MP Kanimozhi, said most of petitions were rejected on the basis that it was confidential or third party information.

“The replies given to Mr Selvaraj’s queries only shows that the public information officers in the I-T department are ignorant of their I-T Act.”