The appellant is Bhagat Singh. He says he had been falsely implicated in a dowry case by Smt Saroj Nimal, in which she has accused that an amount of more than Rs 10 lakhs was spent by her on her second marriage with him. A criminal case is pending against him on the basis of the complaint by Smt. Saroj Nimal. He has questioned the basis of her dowry complaint by seeking evidence from Investigation Wing of Department of Income Tax on sources of income and assets acquired, which has a direct bearing on the capacity of Smt Saroj Nimal to pay the amount of dowry. The appellant has also mentioned that the sources of income and declared assets and expenditure of Smt. Saroj Nimal are not in proportion to the known or declared sources of income by her.

He filed a Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) and has now requested the CPIO to provide him with the details of investigations made by the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation) on his TEP. The CPIO refused to part with the information being personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. The appellate authority agreed with the CPIO on the grounds that

• The appellant was having a personal dispute with the complainee and the complaint made to the Department of Income Tax was out of personal grievance.

• The appellant's interest in the information sought was purely of a personal nature and, therefore, the information sought has no relationship with any public activity or interest.

The harried husband is in appeal to the Information Commission. The Commission observed-

• The aspects of strained human relations that may become the reason for seeking information is out of the purview of our mandate.

• However, the public actions, irrespective of the cause of such actions, and disclosure of its outcome, fall under the domain of RTI Act.

• The action taken on TEP has to be examined accordingly.

• Investigations of the complaint on tax evasion by the IT department is a part of the process of identifying the offenders and assessing the extent of tax evasion by them. Until the nature of offence is duly examined and thoroughly investigated and necessary action is taken under the relevant provisions of tax laws, the disclosure of investigation report on tax evasion is barred u/s 8(1) (h).

• Needless to say, the Department of Income Tax is expected to conduct investigations fairly and objectively, and that in a transparent manner, so that the relevant investigation report could be made public, soon after the taxes due from the offenders are recovered.

• As the investigation on TEP has been conducted by DIT (Inv.), the relevant report is the outcome of public action, which needs to be disclosed. This, therefore, cannot be exempted u/s 8(1)(j) as interpreted by the appellate authority.

So the DIT (Investigation) was directed to disclose the report as per the provision u/s 10 (1) & (2), after the entire process of investigation and tax recovery, if any, is complete in every respect.

So the Commission has ruled that even the result of Income Tax investigation against the estranged wife is public information which has to be furnished. While this is the position, we understand that the CBEC has refused to part with information on the recent transfers of Commissioners on the ground that it is personal.!!! - See 'TIOL Exclusive'.

Our babus who mark newspaper clippings as "top secret" and lock them up in almirahs are in for a shock with the advent of right to information. They are yet to realize that government is of the people and they are only servants of the people. To withhold information from the master on the ground that the servant does not like the master to have knowledge is most unservant-like. That is why it is said that our civil servants are neither servants nor civil.

Babus beware; you are accountable - to the people - with whose money you have been lording over them all these years.

Decisions like this from the Information Commission should make the babus realize and understand the situation.