Information Relating To An Assessee Can Only Be Supplied By Following Procedure U/S 138 Income Tax Act As It Prevails Over RTI Act: Delhi HC

The bench was of the opinion that the that the CIC does not have the jurisdiction to direct furnishing of information, provided for in Section 138 of the Income Tax Act. Further observed that even if they had the jurisdiction, the failure to give PM CARES, notice of hearing, would in itself have vitiated the impugned order.

The said information was denied to the Respondent by the CPIO and the Appellate Authority on the ground that the information sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Therefore, a bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed, “The information, as sought for by the Respondent herein, has been sought from the CPIO of Income Tax Department and not from the PM CARES Fund. The Petitioner herein does not treat PM CARES Fund as an authority. Since the information sought for by the Respondent relates to a third party, PM CARES Fund ought to have been heard. Section 11 of the RTI Act prescribes that any information related to a third party can only be divulged after giving notice to the said third party. In view of the above, the CIC ought to have followed the procedure specified under Section 11 of the RTI Act before ordering for grant of information as sought for by the Respondent herein”.

“…Section 138(1)(b) of the IT Act which specifically states that information relating to an assessee can only be supplied subject to the satisfaction of Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, would prevail over Section 22 of the RTI Act”, the bench further observed.

Additionally, the Court was of the opinion that the satisfaction of Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner was necessary before such information can be divulged. Furthermore, that such satisfaction cannot be abrogated to any other authority under a general Act for divulging the information sought for.

Senior Standing Counsel Zoheb Hossain appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Pranav Sachdeva appeared for the respondent.

In the matter, the petitioner contended that since a specific procedure has been laid down under the Income Tax Act, the CPIO cannot provide the information as it could be contrary to the mandate of Section 138(2) of the Income Tax Act.

It was further argued that the information sought for was exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and in any event since the matter relates to PM CARES Fund, it could not have been disclosed without hearing the PM CARES Fund.

On the contrary, the respondents argued that that there was an overwhelming public interest in directing the authority to supply the information sought for since the PM CARES Fund has been created to serve the public.

It was further submitted that the Income Tax Department approved the applications for grant of exemption to PM CARES Fund, and therefore being a charitable fund, the Respondent wanted to know the exact procedure followed by the Income Tax Department in granting such a swift approval and to see whether any rules or procedure were by-passed by the Income Tax Department in granting such approvals.

Cause Title: CPIO/Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Hq Exemption, New Delhi v. Girish Mittal [Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:453]