The Hon’ble Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court set aside the order passed by the CIC directing the IT Department for providing information related to documents on PM Cares Fund, while invoking the exemption under the IT Act, 1961.
In the instant case, the CPIO/Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax HQ Exemption, New Delhi, had approached the Hon’ble Court by a writ petition challenging the aforesaid order passed by the CIC, on an application filed under the RTI Act by Mumbai-based activist Mr. Girish Mittal in May, 2020. The Respondent, Mr. Girish Mittal, sought copies of all documents submitted by the PM CARES Fund in its exemption application and copies of file notings granting the approval. The Respondent also demanded a list of all exemption applications file from 1st August, 2019 to 31st March, 2020 and details of the rejected applications. The Respondent was denied the said information by the CPIO on 15th June, 2020 and the said rejection upheld the Appellate Authority on 19th August, 2020 owing to the reason that the information sought for was exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner contended that any information of any assessee relating to income-tax could be sought for only in the manner prescribed under Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the petitioner contended that the information sought for by the Respondent is 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.
The question which arose for consideration herein was whether Section 138(2) of the IT Act, 1961 containing an non obstante clause would override Section 22 of the RTI Act or not.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that in view of the fact that Section 138(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 mandated that information as regards an assesse could 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 could be said the Section 138(2) of the IT Act, 1961 would prevail over Section 22 of the RTI Act. The court even held that if the CIC had jurisdiction to order the IT Department to furnish the information, the Commission’s failure to give notice to PM Cares of the hearing would in itself have vitiated the order.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that since the information sought for by the respondent related to a third party, PM CARES Fund ought to have been heard. Section 11 of the RTI Act prescribed that any third-party information could only be divulged after intimating the said third party by notice. Thus, the CIC ought to have abided by the procedure specified under Section 11 of the RTI Act before ordering the information as sought for by the respondent.
Thus, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by the IT Department and had set aside the order of CIC.
The Hon’ble Single Judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad of the Delhi High Court passed this judgment.
CASE NAME: CPIO/Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax HQ Exemption, New Delhi Vs. Girish Mittal (Decided on 22nd January, 2024).
Aditya Paul, 5th Year Student, Adamas University, Intern Under Legal Vidhiya
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments