Central Information Commission
Sandeep Kumar vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 28 March, 2024
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCABH/A/2023/612129
Sandeep Kumar .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of Commissioner of
Income Tax Exemptions, Room No
201, 2nd floor Metro Walk, E
5, Arera Colony, Bhopal - 462016 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13-03-2024
Date of Decision : 27-03-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09-01-2023
CPIO replied on : 30-01-2023
First appeal filed on : 30-01-2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 10-02-2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07-03-2023
Page 1 of 9
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.01.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. Is Korba Development Educational Society, Kosabandi, Korba Town, Korba, 495677 is registered as a charitable society/trust with the income tax department? Yes/No. Kindly Specify.
2. If yes, kindly mention the date of registration of Korba Development Educational Society with Income Tax department under exempt category under section 12 A of the IT Act.
3. Kindly provision a true copy of the form 10 A of the Korba Development Educational Society registration with Income Tax department under exempt category under section 12 A.
4. Kindly provide true copy of the incorporation and constitution details of the Korba Development Educational Society, Kosabandi, Korba Town, Korba,495677 with respect to form 10A submitted.
5. Kindly provide true copy of other Registration details of the Korba Development Educational Society, Kosabandi, Korba Town, Korba, 495677 with respect to form 10A submitted.
6. Kindly provide true copy of Details of Key Person of the Korba Development Educational Society, Kosabandi, Korba Town, Korba, 495677 with respect to form 10A submitted.
7. Kindly provide true copy of Details of Assets and Liabilities of the Korba Development Educational Society, Kosabandi, Korba Town, Korba, 495677 with respect to form 10A submitted.
8. Kindly provide true copy of Income Details (Details of grant received by the government) of the Korba Development Educational Society, Kosabandi, Korba Town, Korba, 495677 with respect to form 10A submitted.
9. Kindly provide true copy of Religious Activity details, if any of the Korba Development Educational Society, Kosabandi, Korba Town, Korba, 495677 with respect to form 10A submitted.Page 2 of 9
10. Kindly provide the date of registration of the Korba Development Educational Society, Kosabandi, Korba Town as a charitable society/trust with the income tax department under section 12AA of the income tax act."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 30.01.2023 stating as under:
"As per Section 8(1)(f) following information is exempt from disclosure under RTI Act, 2005:
information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information"
The information sought for by the applicant relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and no larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. Thus, the RTI Application is hereby rejected u/s 8(1)(f) of RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.01.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 10.02.2023, held as under:-
"Accordingly, the date of hearing was fixed on 09.02.2023 and the appellant was requested to provide the Case Laws/Judgment Details mentioned by him in the First Appeal. The appellant has sought exemption from physically appearing on the date of hearing and provided the Judgment details through the email provided.
I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant as well as the order of CPIO. I have also considered the Ld. CIC's judgment CIC/LS/A/2009/00190 dated 09.03.2010. The information sought in Point Number 1 and 2 is already available in public domain. The CPIO is directed to provide the information sought by the appellant in point number 1 and 2.
The information sought for by the appellant in Point Number 3 to 10 could not be provided to the appellant on following grounds:
As per Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005, following information is exempt from disclosure:Page 3 of 9
information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information"
The information sought for by the applicant relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and no larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
Further, as per Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act, 2005, following information is exempt from disclosure:
"Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information"
The information sought for by the applicant are available with the Income Tax Department in fiduciary capacity and no larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Rajiv Joseph, CPIO, appeared through video conference.
The appellant inter alia submitted that desired information was not provided by the respondent. He further submitted that he sought information regarding compliance detail related to a Public Trust "Korba Development Educational Society" which is registered under the Chhattisgarh State Society Registration Act, 1973. The appellant stated that aforesaid Charitable Trust is a beneficiary of Income Tax exemptions from government of India. He informed that said society was beneficiary of exemption of Property Taxes to the local government (Urban Local Body). He pleaded that it was a settled issue vide myriad orders of the Hon'ble Central Information Commission that a charitable trust which is enjoying Income Tax exemptions under the Income Tax Act, 1961 Page 4 of 9 cannot hide their compliance documentation in clandestine and surreptitious manner claiming fiduciary relationship with Income Tax Department and taking shelter under Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided point-wise reply to the appellant vide letters dated 30.01.2023 and 10.02.2023. The respondent informed that information sought on point Nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI application was available in public domain. As regards point Nos. 3 to 10 of the RTI application, the respondent stated that information sought pertained to third party, held by them under fiduciary capacity and the disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Therefore, they denied the information under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that the respondent provided point-wise reply to the appellant vide letters dated 30.01.2023 and 10.02.2023 wherein the information sought on point No. 1 and 2 was available in public domain. As regards point No. 3 to 10 of the RTI application, the respondent denied the information on the ground of third-party information, held by them under fiduciary capacity and the disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Accordingly, they claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act.
In this regard, the Commission refers to a decision of Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 340/2023 & CM APPL. 1348/2023, Central Public Information Officer vs. Kailash Chandra Moondra, wherein it has been categorically held that 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. Therefore, the Commission agrees with the stand taken by the Respondent in denying the information on point No. 2 Page 5 of 9 of the RTI application. The relevant extract of the aforesaid Delhi High Court order is reproduced hereinbelow:
"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 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 the general law is and what is the special law and which law in Page 6 of 9 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 to 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."
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 Page 7 of 9 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 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.
8. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed."
Page 8 of 9In view of the above observations made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the Commission is not inclined to intervene in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त)
Authenticated true copy Date 27-03-2024
(अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्)
(R K Rao)
Dy. Registrar
011- 26181827
Page 9 of 9