The Delhi High Court set aside the Central Information Commission ( CIC ) order to provide right to information ( RTI ) on tax exemption allowed to PM CARES Fund.
The CPIO/Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax HQ Exemption, approached the Delhi High Court challenging the order, passed by the Central Information Commission ( CIC ), directing the Petitioner herein to provide the copies of all the documents submitted in the exemption application No. CIT ( Exemption ), Delhi/2019-20/80G/11528 and copies of the file noting granting the approval relating to PM CARES Fund under the Right to Information ( RTI ) application filed by the Respondent.
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.
Zoheb Hossain, Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the information sought for by the Petitioner would be hit by Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as the same relates to disclosure of personal information and it was further stated that the CIC has not ruled or adjudicated on the question as to what is the public interest involved in the case which would outweigh the protected interest and without adjudicating the said issue, the CIC could not have directed the Petitioner to give the information sought for, more so when the Central Public Information Officer ( CPIO ), the DCIT ( Exemption ) and the Appellate Authority have rejected the application of the Respondent on the ground that the information sought is personal in nature.
The counsel for the respondent contended that the Income Tax Department approved the applications given by the PM CARES Fund for grant of exemption on Income Tax under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act on 27.03.2020 and that the Respondent wants 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.
A Single Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that “In the present case, the question which arose was whether Section 138(2) of the Income Tax Act which also contains a non-obstante clause would override Section 22 of the RTI Act or not. In view of the fact that Section 138(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act mandates 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, it can be said that Section 138(2) of the Income Tax Act would prevail over Section 22 of the RTI Act.”
“Thus, this Court is of the view, that the CIC does not have the jurisdiction to direct furnishing of information, provided for in Section 138 of the Income Tax Act. In any case, even if they had the jurisdiction, the failure to give PM CARES, notice of hearing, would in itself have vitiated the impugned” the Court concluded.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
