R.k.mahajan v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax & Central Public Informationofficer (Rti Cell) And Others

CWP Nos.7170, 9205 and 9206 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA,Al CHANDIGARH 202/203/204 CWP Nos.7170, 9205 and 9206 of2013)Decided on: 1/.10.2016 R.K.Mahajan Versus — Petitioner Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Central Public InformationOfficer (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 appearanceon behalf of the petitioner. On the last three occasions also, none hadappeared on behalf of the petitioner. This order shall dispose of all the aforesaid writ petitionsby a common order as they have a common judgment. The relevantfacts 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 thesame 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 2 Dev (hereinafter known as the Assessee) along with her Income TaxAssessment for the assessment year 2008-09 after making inquiries andinvestigations as per the report of the petitioner. Similarly, noticesunder Section 17(1) of the Wealth Tax Act for the assessment year2003-04 to 2005-06 were issued in the month of March, 2010. Theinformation sought to be ascertained was as to whether urban landworth five crores of rupees claimed by the Assessee as exempt fromWealth Tax had been brought to tax or not. The said assessee had filed objections regarding disclosureof her information on the ground that the information as sought isentirely her personal financial information, disclosure of which has norelationship with public activity and providing of information willcause unwanted invasion of her privacy. Providing of her informationto 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 on17.06.2011 (Annexure P/2), of the petitioner while disposing of theapplication. The first appeal was dismissed by noticing that the CentralInformation Commissioner vide its order dated 29.12.2010 had heldthat broad information be provided to the appellant whether the inputs,provided by him, were found to be true partially true or untrue after thecompletion of the enquiry/investigation since premature furnishing ofinformation would jeopardize action being taken by the department and Resultantly, the first appeal was also disposed of, in thesame terms. The Central Information Commission also accordinglydisposed of the second appeal in the same terms. Thereafter, the presentwrit petition has been filed. In the written statement, it has been averred that aftertaking cognizance of the complaint, enquiry proceeding under theWealth Tax Act 1957 were initiated and assessment had been made forthe assessment year 2003-04 and it was held that the agricultural landwhich fell within the Municipal Limits of Kapurthala was an asset asper the provisions of Section 2(ea) (5) read with explanation 1(b) of theWealth Tax Act, 1957. The appeal had been filed by the said assessee which wasallowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jalandharholding that the agriculture land of the assessee as per the record of theGovernment and use for agricultural purposes in not to be treated asUrban Land and consequently, a taxable asset under the provisions ofSection 2(ea) (5) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 in view of the amendedprovision of section 61 of Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 1.4.1993, The appeal had been filed by the said assessee which wasallowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jalandharholding that the agriculture land of the assessee as per the record of theGovernment and use for agricultural purposes in not to be treated asUrban Land and consequently, a taxable asset under the provisions ofSection 2(ea) (5) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 in view of the amendedprovision of section 61 of Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 1.4.1993, Keeping in view the above, it is apparent that the standtaken by the respondent on earlier occasion dated 21.03.2014 that theinformation stood supplied, is well justified. As noticed, none has putin appearance on behalf of the petitioner thereafter. Keeping in viewthe fact that assessee had opted for availing her legal remedy against CWP Nos.7170, 9205 and 9206 of 2013 petitioner, the present writ petitions are disposed of as having beenrendered infructuous. Photocopy of the order be placed on the files of otherconnected cases, 17.10.2016SdWhether speaking/reasonedWhether Reportable | G.S.Sandhawalia |Judge Yes/NoYes/No