RTI IN INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 269

This article is written by Gargi Nagpal of 4^th Semester of Alliance University, Bengaluru

ABSTRACT

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) is in charge of and oversees the operation of the Income Tax Department. Its 60,000 employees are dispersed across more than 500 cities and towns in the nation. The field offices are split up into regions, and a Chief Commissioner of Income Tax oversees each region. Every region is given yearly performance goals, such as revenue collections, and is given access to the necessary budgetary resources to cover operating costs. The aim of this research paper is to evaluate RTI and Income Tax Act of 1961 specifically and then establish the significance of former in the latter.

Keywords: Right to Information, Income Tax Act, Taxation Authorities, Tax Refund, Assessments

INTRODUCTION

On October 12, 2005, the Right to Information (RTI) Act went into effect. The Act enables many citizens to access information from various government departments and other organizations, such as PSUs, Indian Railways, the Reserve Bank of India, and others, that was previously unavailable. By submitting an application under the RTI Act, information can be obtained. It requires the least amount of effort, time, and money. A few organizations, including the CBI and RAW, are essentially exempt. Furthermore, all organizations covered by the RTI Act known as “Public Authorities” are exempt from providing certain information. These exempt items include information that is confidential to businesses, trade secrets, or intellectual property, information that would obstruct law enforcement in their efforts to apprehend or prosecute criminals, personal information whose disclosure would unreasonably invade an individual’s right to privacy, etc.

An RTI application to a Central Government authority cost ₹ 10 and can be submitted with a postal order. The Indian Prime Minister decided that the Department of Posts should serve as a collection point for information under the RTI Act for all Central Government Departments by designating its Central Assistant Public Information Officers (CAPIOs) as PIOs for the entire Central Govt. The postal service is now responsible for not only collecting the fee on behalf of all Central Government Departments and issuing postal orders for it, but also for delivering the RTI application free of charge to the relevant CPIO wherever he or she may be in India on the same day. The applicant may choose to use this service for delivery at their discretion. You are free to deliver the application in person or by registered mail A.D. to the relevant department. The Public Information Officer (PIO) should receive an RTI application. One or more PIOs must be appointed by each establishment (i.e., Public Authority) covered by the RTI Act, one for each of the department’s various offices.

Right to Information:

Any information that the government can reveal to the parliament may be requested by the citizens from the government authorities. RTI does not apply to some information that might jeopardize India’s integrity and sovereignty. RTI does not apply to information about internal security, relations with other nations, intellectual property rights, or cabinet meetings.

Significance of the Act:

The RTI Act, 2005 has a significance of its own, few of those are briefly mentioned herein.

1. The RTI Act of 2005 gives the citizen the ability to inquire about the secrecy and abuse of authority that take place in government.

2. Access to such information is made available by the information commissions at the federal and state levels.

3. RTI information can be viewed as a public good because it is pertinent to citizens’ interests and a foundational element of a healthy, transparent democracy.

4. The information gathered is helpful for other purposes that would further the interests of society as a whole, in addition to helping to hold the government accountable.

5. The RTI Act, the world’s most widely used sunshine law, receives approximately six million applications each year.

6. These applications seek information on a variety of topics, ranging from holding the government responsible for the fulfilment of fundamental rights and entitlements to challenging the nation’s highest offices.

7. Using the RTI Act, people have requested information that governments do not want to release because it could reveal corruption, human rights abuses, and state wrongdoing.

8. The ability to obtain information about governmental actions, decisions, and policies that have an impact on citizens’ lives is a tool for ensuring accountability.

9. The RTI is a fundamental right that derives from Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee citizens’ freedom of speech and expression and their right to life, respectively, according to several rulings by the Supreme Court.

The framework or basis for charge and the computation of a person’s total income is set forth in the Income Tax Act of 1961. It also specifies how it is to be taxed, outlining in great detail the exemptions, deductions, rebates, and reliefs. The Act outlines the jurisdiction, authority, and duties of Income Tax Authorities. Additionally, it specifies how these authorities will carry out the Act’s enforcement through a coordinated process of assessments, collection and recovery, appeals and revisions, penalties, and prosecutions. The Finance Act is used each year to amend the Act, which is dynamic and ever-changing. The CBDT has published the Income Tax Rules 1962 in order to carry out the authority granted by Section 295 of the Income Tax Act of 1961 and Rules 15 of Part A, Rule 11 of Part B, and Rule 9 of Part C of the Fourth Schedule to the Act. The Income Tax Act will be applied consistently thanks to these Rules’ definitions, limitations, explanations, and forms of application and procedures.

RTI & INCOME TAX REFUND:

The IT department’s RTI applications have so far had an unbelievable 100% success rate. The RTI application is always handled right away, and you receive any pending refunds within 30 days (in some cases, refunds take longer to process because your return wasn’t received; in those cases, you are asked to submit duplicate copies with an indemnity on stamped paper). If your income tax refunds are past due, this is a remarkable and highly effective tool. The RTI Act is so effective that the outcomes in the majority of cases are remarkably astounding. The Act establishes a clear, time-limited procedure for citizens to access information. The Act contains severe criminal penalties. Most laws impose punishment on citizens for inaction or improper behaviour.

JUDGEMENTS

Central Public Information Officer v. Kailash Chandra Moondra[1]

In this instance, Kailash Chandra Moondra, the RTI Applicant/Respondent, requested information about the “Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust” in an RTI application that was submitted to the CBDT CPIO on February 16, 2021. The RTI applicant/respondent then made a second appeal to the CIC. In Mrs. Begum Pasha Bee v. CPIO/ITO[2] (Exemptions), bearing which was dated 8-12-2017], the CIC proceeded based on its own decision and reversed the conclusions of the CPIO, CBDT, and the Appellate Authority, CBDT via the impugned order dated 30th November 2022. According to the aforementioned authority’s findings in the aforementioned order, the public interest in the subject has not been disclosed, which is a requirement under Section 11 of the RTI Act for the disclosure of private and confidential third-party information. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (Protection of life and personal liberty) was also cited. The petitioner, CPIO, CBDT, has established a presumptive case for the granting of temporary relief; the balance of convenience is in its favour and failure to grant temporary relief would result in irreparable harm to the petitioner. Therefore, the contested order, dated November 30, 2022, which is alleged to have been received by the CPIO, CBDT, on January 3, 2023, shall be stayed until the next hearing date. In accordance with the same, no coercive measures may be taken against the CPIO or CBDT.

Paramjit Singh v. State Information Commission, Punjab

The land in question was allocated in 1950, during the time of partition, according to a review of the paper book. According to Annexure P4, which relates to the year 1999, the Municipal Corporation of Ludhiana had been providing an annual grant of Rs. 50,000. A review of the respondent-society is a registered charitable organization that manages the Dr. B.L. Kapoor Memorial Hospital and College of Nursing, as shown by Annexure P7. The petitioner is an ex-employee whose employment with the hospital in question was terminated, which prompted the filing of the application for information. A certain category of tax payers may claim the exemption provided by the Income Tax Act, and just because one has been granted does not imply that the government will have this level of control over the hospital. According to the findings, the amount of assistance provided to the hospital was not significant, it was only marginal, and it wasn’t consistent.

CONCLUSION

The Right to Information Act was created to promote social justice, transparency, and accountable government, but it hasn’t fully achieved those goals due to some roadblocks that were put in place as a result of systemic mistakes. According to the Delhi High Court, misuse of the RTI Act must be appropriately addressed in order to prevent the public from losing trust in this “sunshine Act.” It is common knowledge that improving governance requires more than just the right to information. The protection of informants, decentralization of power, and the fusion of authority with accountability at all levels are just a few of the many things that need to be done to bring about accountability in governance. This law gives us a priceless chance to redesign the governance structures, especially at the local level where citizen involvement is highest.

REFERENCES

[1] Central Public Information Officer v. Kailash Chandra Moondra, W.P.(C) 340 OF 2023

[2] Mrs. Begum P asha Bee v. CPIO/ITO, AIR 2016