Central Information Commission
Rabiuddin Ahmed vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 25 March, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCITK/A/2023/147696
Rabiuddin Ahmed .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Office of the Income Tax
Officer, Exemption Ward1(4),
10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata - 700071 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21.03.2025
Date of Decision : 21.03.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02.12.2022
CPIO replied on : 13.03.2023
First appeal filed on : 16.01.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 08.02.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25.10.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.12.2022 (offline) seeking the following information:Page 1 of 9
"1. Kindly Provide the information as to Names and Address of the Board of Trustees of Prabha Khaitan Foundation as Updated with the Department of Income Tax.
2. Kindly Provide the information as to Date of Registration of Prabha Khaitan Foundation with the Department of Income Tax.
3. Kindly Provide the information as to the name/s of the Trustees being removed and appointed, time to time, as declared by Prabha Khaitan Foundation with the Department of Income Tax.
4. Kindly Provide the Copy of the Registered Trust Deed, Constitution and By-Laws as filed by Prabha Khaitan Foundation being filed by the same with your Authority.
5. Kindly inform as to the declaration of Prabha Khaitan Foundation as to its Nature of Trust Le. Public Charitable and or Private Trust.
6. Kindly Provide the information if section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act are applicable to Prabha Khaitan Foundation (PAN-AAATP6558QJ.
7. Kindly Provide the information if Prabha Khaitan Foundation Is Registered u/s 12A and/or 12AA of the Income Tax Act.
8. Kindly Provide the information if Prabha Khaitan Foundation has exemption u/s 80G8/80GG/80GGA and exemption under any other section of the Income Tax Act.
9. Kindly Provide the information if Prabha Khaitan Foundation have a Active License /Permission under Foreign Currency Regulating Act [FCRA] to receive funding from foreign countries.
10. Balance Sheets and Statement of Income and Expenditure for the Last Ten (10) years from the Assessment Year 2011-12 to 2020-21 may be given.
11. Assessment orders for the last Ten (10) years from the Assessment Year 2011-12 to 2020-21 may be given."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 13.03.2023 stating as under:
Page 2 of 9"1 Not available to this office 2 31st October, 1987 (as per records available) 3 Not available to this office 4 Not available to this office 5 Public charitable Trust object of which is advancement of any other object of general public utility (as per records available) 6 As per records available, exemption claimed u/s. 11 & 12 ar applicable.
7 Transferred to the CPIO cum DCIT, Hqr, Exemption 8 Transferred to the CPIO cum DCIT, Hqr, Exemption 9 Not relating to this office 10 Not available to this office 11 Not available to this office"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.01.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 08.02.2023, held as under:
"I have gone through the facts of the case and the appeal filed by the first party being applicant. The appeal was first fixed for hearing on 31.1.2023 vide this office letter dated 18.01.2023 sent through regd. post. The appellant appeared on that date and the case was partly heard and adjourned, on the next day, 01/02/2023 and the case is heard.
At the time of hearing the AO submitted that the information relates to third party as per provisions of Sec. 8 of the RTI Act and he has written to that party for permission to share the information, and as it was not received with in the stipulated time period the RTI application was not disposed with in due time. Mr. Rabiuddin Ahmed, appellant sated at the hearing that he has asked for information in respect of a public trust and not from an 'individual' and as per provisions of Sec.8(1)(j) of the RTI Act there is no bar in sharing information in respect of a 'public trust' and thus he appealed to share the desired information.Page 3 of 9
Now the decision on the appeal is taken on merits considering the materials available on records and the verbal submission of the appellant.
After considering the materials available on record and the appeal filed by the applicant Mr. Rabiuddin Ahmed, the CPIO is directed to re- consider the original RTI application in respect of the information asked for, except classified information as per provisions of Sec.8 of the RTI Act, 2005 after providing sufficient opportunity to the applicant."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Varun Varshney, CPIO-cum-ITO, attended the hearing through VC.
The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in point No. 1, 3, 4, 5, 10 and 11 of the RTI Application.
The Respondent a suitable and pointwise reply in compliance with the directions passed by the First Appellate authority has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 14.06.2023, stating as under:
1. "Exempt u/s 8(1)(e) & 8(1)(j) of RTI Act since the information being obtained out o fiduciary capacity and the third party (the assessee ie, Prabha Khaitan Foundation also did not give consent to disclose such information
2. 31-10-1987 (as per records available)
3. Exempt u/s 8(1)(e) & 8(1)(j) of RTI Act since the information being obtained out o fiduciary capacity and the third party (the assessee le, Prabha Khaitan Foundation also did not give consent to disclose such information
4. These are neither prepared by the Public Authority nor is the outcome of its activities and thus Section 8(1)(e) is applicable for withholding the information.
Also, the third party 1.e, the assessee (Prabha Khaitan Foundation) did not give consent to disclose such information. Therefore, this information is also exempt u/s 8(1)(j)
5. Public Charitable Trust (as per records available)"
6. As per records available, exemption claimed u/s 11 & 12 are applicable Page 4 of 9
7. Yes, Registered u/s 12A and provisional approval has also been given by the CPC Bengaluru
8. No, since no such claim has been found from the available records. Exemption u/s 80G is available to Prabha Khaitan Foundation.
9. No such information is obtained from the available records of this office
10. Can not be disclosed u/s 8(1)(e) of RTI Act 2005 since the relevant document is neither prepared by the Public Authority, nor is the outcome of its activities and thus Section 8(1)(e) is applicable for withholding the information. Also the information cannot be disclosed u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 since these include specified Information. documents and the third party did not give consent to disclose such specific information/documents
11. Can not be disclosed u/s 8(1)(e) of RTI Act 2005 since the relevant document is neither prepared by the Public Authority, nor is the outcome of its activities and thus Section 8(1)(e) is applicable for withholding the information. Also the information cannot be disclosed u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 since these include specified information documents and the third party did not give consent to disclose such specific information/documents Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that a suitable and pointwise reply in compliance with the directions passed by the First Appellate authority has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 14.06.2023 and the Commission upholds the same. The Commission would like to draw the attention of the parties toward the recent judgement passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled Central Public Information Officer v. Kailash Chandra Moondra, W.P. (C) No. 340/2023 dated 28.02.2024 wherein it was held as under -
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that the information pertaining to an assessee cannot be granted under the RTI Act in view of Section 138(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He places reliance upon a Judgment dated 22.01.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 10193/2022 in the case of "CPIO/Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax HQ Exemption, New Delhi vs. Girish Mittal" wherein this Court has observed as under:
15. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, Section 138 (1)(b) and Section 138 (2) of the IT Act which lays down a specific procedure relating to disclosure of information relating to a third party under the IT Act would override Section 22 of the RTI Act. The information sought for by the Page 5 of 9 Respondent herein is clearly covered by Section 138(1)(b) of the IT Act. The satisfaction of Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is, therefore, necessary before such information can be divulged. That satisfaction cannot be abrogated to any other authority under a general Act for divulging the information sought for.
16. The said judgment has been followed by the Apex Court in Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 2007 SCC OnLine CIC 315.
17. In Chief Information Commr. v. High Court of Gujarat,(2020) 4 SCC 702, when an issue was raised over furnishing of information of certified copies obtained from the High Court of Gujarat by invoking the provisions of the RTI Act, the Apex Court, while resorting to the Gujarat High Court Rules, has observed as under:
"35. The non obstante clause of the RTI Act does not mean an implied repeal of the High Court Rules and orders framed under Article 225 of the Constitution of India; but only has an overriding effect in case of inconsistency. A special enactment or rule cannot be held to be overridden by a later general enactment simply because the latter opens up with a non obstante clause, unless there is clear inconsistency between the two legislations. In this regard, we may usefully refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka [R.S. Raghunath v.
State of Karnataka, (1992) 1 SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 286] wherein, the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC pp. 356-57, para 38) "38. In Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India [Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 127 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 355] , Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as his Lordship then was) observed thus : (SCC p. 153, para 38)
38. ... As mentioned hereinbefore if the Scheme was held to be valid, then the question what is the general law and what is the special law and which law in case of conflict would prevail would have arisen and that would have necessitated the application of the principle "generalia specialibus non derogant". The general rule to be followed in case of conflict between the two statutes is that the later abrogates the earlier one. In other words, a prior special law would yield a later general law, if either of the two following conditions is satisfied:
"(i) The two are inconsistent with each other.
(ii) There is some express reference in the later to the earlier enactment."Page 6 of 9
If either of these two conditions is fulfilled, the later law, even though general, would prevail.'" (emphasis supplied)
18. Applying the said analogy to the facts of the present case, 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.
19. The issue raised herein has been settled by a Bench of three Member Bench of the CIC which, in the opinion of this Court, is binding on the Bench which has passed the impugned order. A Bench of three Commissioners of the CIC in G.R. Rawal v. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), 2008 SCC OnLine CIC 1008, while considering the very same issue has observed as under:
"15. Thus, both the Right to Information Act, 2005 and Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deal with disclosure of information. While Right to Information Act is a general law concerning the disclosure of information by the public authorities, Section 138 of the Income Tax Act is a special legislation dealing with disclosure of information concerning the assesses. This Commission in "Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. ITAT, decided on 18th September, 2007 decided by a Full Bench, has dealt with the issue of applicability of special law to the exclusion of the general law. The Commission has relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in "Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla -- AIR 2002 SC 2322". The following two paragraphs from the said decision of the Commission are pertinent and quoted below:
37. A special enactment or Rule, therefore, cannot be held to be overridden by a later general enactment or simply because the latter opens up with a nonobstante clause unless there is clear inconsistency between the two legislations -- one which is later in order of time and the other which is a special enactment. This issue came again for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla -- AIR 2002 SC 2322 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted with approval the Broom's Legal Maxim in reference to two Latin Maxims in the following words: "It is then, an elementary Rule that an earlier Act must give place to a later, if the two cannot be reconciled - lex posterior derogate priori - non est novum ut priores leges ad posteriors trahantur (Emphasis supplied) - and one Act Page 7 of 9 may repeal another by express words or by implication; for it is enough if there be words which by necessary implication repeal it. But repeal by implication is never to be favoured, and must not be imputed to the legislature without necessity, or strong reason, to be shown by the party imputing it. It is only effected where the provisions of the later enactment are so inconsistent with, or repugnant to, those of the earlier that the two cannot stand together2; unless the two Acts are so plainly repugnant to each other that effect cannot be given to both at the same time a repeal cannot be implied; and special Acts are not repealed by general Acts unless there be some express reference to the previous legislation, or a necessary inconsistency in the two Acts standing together, which prevents the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant (Emphasis supplied) from being applied. For where there are general words in a later Act capable of reasonable application without being extended to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, then, in the absence of an indication of a particular intention to that effect, the presumption is that the general words were not intended to repeal the earlier and special legislation, or to take away a particular privilege of a particular class of persons."
38. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Apex Court also cited with approval an earlier decision in Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur v. Thakur Manmohan Dey
- MANU/SC/0202/1966, in which it was indicated that an earlier special law cannot be held to have been abrogated by mere implication. That being so, the argument regarding implied repeal has to be rejected for both the reasons set out above."
Propriety demanded that the CIC ought to have followed the opinion of the larger Bench, which is binding on it...."
In view of the applicability of the above ratio, the Commission finds no scope for its intervention in the instant case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) Page 8 of 9 (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA Office of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Range - 1, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata - 700071 Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)