ITR Are ‘Personal Information’ Under RTI; Spouse Can’t Seek Disclosure Without Larger Public Interest: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that income tax returns of an assessee constitute “personal information” under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and are therefore exempt from disclosure unless a demonstrable larger public interest is established. The bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj set aside an order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC), which had directed the Income Tax Department to furnish copies of a husband’s income tax returns and related financial details to his wife. The bench ruled that matrimonial disputes or maintenance proceedings do not automatically qualify as “public interest” for the purpose of overriding statutory exemptions under the RTI Act. The case arose from a writ petition filed by the Income Tax Officer and Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Centralised Processing Centre, Bengaluru, challenging the CIC’s order dated April 12, 2019. The wife of an assessee had sought copies of her husband’s Income Tax Returns for Assessment Years 2012–2017, along with details of taxes paid and associated bank accounts. The CPIO rejected the application under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, stating that the information was held in a fiduciary capacity and also constituted third-party personal information. The First Appellate Authority upheld this rejection, observing that no larger public interest had been demonstrated. However, on second appeal, the CIC allowed the request and directed disclosure, relying on a prior High Court judgment in a separate case. Aggrieved by this direction, the Income Tax Department approached the High Court. The High Court examined several critical issues. Firstly, whether income tax returns qualify as “personal information” exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Secondly, whether the Income Tax Department holds such information in a fiduciary capacity under Section 8(1)(e). Third, whether a spouse can claim access to tax records through RTI in the absence of larger public interest. Lastly, whether Section 138 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which governs disclosure of tax information, overrides the general framework of the RTI Act. The Bench relied extensively on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, where it was categorically held that information contained in income tax returns is personal in nature and exempt from disclosure unless larger public interest is established. The High Court observed that income tax returns contain sensitive financial details, including information that may relate to third-party transactions. Such data is furnished under statutory compulsion, accompanied by a legitimate expectation of confidentiality. Disclosure, the Court noted, would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The Court further held that the Income Tax Department receives tax information in a relationship of statutory trust and confidence. The details contained in tax filings pertain to private financial affairs rather than public activity, and therefore attract protection under Section 8(1)(j). A crucial aspect of the judgment was the interpretation of Section 138 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which specifically regulates disclosure of tax-related information. Invoking the legal maxim generalia specialibus non derogant (a general law does not override a special law), the Court held that the RTI Act, being a general legislation governing access to information, cannot dilute the confidentiality provisions under the Income-tax Act unless expressly permitted. The Bench clarified that statutory mechanisms under the Income-tax Act must be respected before directing disclosure of confidential tax information. The Court underscored that matrimonial conflicts or maintenance claims do not, by themselves, constitute “public interest” within the meaning of the RTI Act. The judgment emphasized that the appropriate course for a spouse seeking financial disclosure in maintenance proceedings is to approach the competent matrimonial court. Such courts possess adequate powers to summon documents and compel production of financial records, with procedural safeguards better suited to adjudicating private disputes. The RTI Act, the Court observed, is not intended to serve as a substitute for discovery or evidence-gathering mechanisms available in judicial proceedings. The Court directed that when income tax returns or similar financial records are sought under RTI, authorities must determine whether the information qualifies as “personal information” under Section 8(1)(j). Examine whether the data is held in a fiduciary capacity under Section 8(1)(e). Assess whether any demonstrable larger public interest justifies disclosure. Consider the interplay between the RTI Act and special statutes such as the Income-tax Act. The High Court quashed the CIC’s order and reaffirmed that income tax returns and related financial particulars are exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act in the absence of overriding public interest. Case Details Case Title: Income Tax Officer and CPIO v. Gulsanober & Anr. Citation: JURISHOUR-132-HC-2026(Kar) Case No.: Writ Petition No. 34625 Of 2019 (GM-RES) Date: 21/02/2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Advocates M. Dilip and Y. V. Raviraj Counsel For Respondent: Advocates Kemparaju, Shanthi Bhushan Click Here To Read Order Read More: S. 68 Addition on Opening Loan Balances Held Unsustainable: ITAT

ITR Are ‘Personal Information’ Under RTI; Spouse Can’t Seek Disclosure Without Larger Public Interest: Karnataka High Court

Membership Required

Latest articles

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Former Jharkhand Minister in Disproportionate Assets Case

SAD Refund Can’t Be Denied for Invoice Format Differences When Substantive Conditions Are Met: CESTAT

Value of Bought-Out Items Not Includable in Assessable Value: CESTAT

CESTAT Quashes Bank Guarantee Condition for Provisional Release of Areca Nuts, Calls It Arbitrary and Unreasonable

More like this

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Former Jharkhand Minister in Disproportionate Assets Case

SAD Refund Can’t Be Denied for Invoice Format Differences When Substantive Conditions Are Met: CESTAT

Value of Bought-Out Items Not Includable in Assessable Value: CESTAT

About us

Company

Categories