Central Information Commission
Kamal Kashyap vs Pr.Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 22 May, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCITP/A/2024/601569
Kamal Kashyap .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o the Asst. Commissioner of
Income Tax, Circle 2, PMT
Building, Shankar Seth Road,
Pune - 411037 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20.05.2025
Date of Decision : 22.05.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01.12.2023
CPIO replied on : 28.12.2023
First appeal filed on : 01.01.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 09.01.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.12.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"w.r.t to documents submitted by Assessee (PAN ********36P) or Municipal Corporation for project named ALCOVE, subject of ITAT case Page 1 of 8 No.1762/PUN/2018, please provide the completion certificates for all wings. Please include any letters from assessee or Municipal Corporation that were submitted clarifying wings or projects as complete. The O/o ACIT (range-3) is the dept shown as prosecuting the case.
I am a senior citizen aged 78, and an inspection is not possible. In reply, pls also share name and email IDs of PIO and FAA.
NOTE: Similar documents were allegedly provided by the assessee in ITA 1328/PN/2009, but in proceedings in 2nd appeal 4778/2022/Pune were denied by PMC as ever being issued."
1. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 28.12.2023 stating as under:
"With regards to your request, a letter was sent to you vide DIN No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1059015751(1) dated 22.12.2023 to prove that the information sought vide your RTI application, is in the larger public interest. Your reply was received vide mail dated 23.12.2023 wherein you have not submitted any reasons that the information sought by you is in larger public interest.
At the same time, a letter dated 22.12.2023 was also issued to Shri Hemraj Mundada, Prop. of Atul Enterprises, builder of project "Alcove", to submit his comments/NOC for consent to supply the information sought by the applicant vide above RTI. In response, Shri Hemraj Mundada, vide email dated 26.12.2023, has strongly objected to making his details available to third party.
In view of above, since you have failed to establish that the information sought, is in larger public interest. Accordingly, the application made by you is hereby rejected u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
This order is passed u/s 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The application is disposed of accordingly."
2. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.01.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 09.01.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
Page 2 of 8The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Ms. Farida Pathariya, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, appeared through video conference.
4. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 09.05.2025 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record, copy of the same was sent to the Appellant. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
"The Appellant Shri Kamal Kashyap has also filed RTI's vide No. CCITP/R/E/23/00166 & 167 dated 14.12.2023 wherein, he has sought certain documents with regard to completion of project "Leela Garden"
completed by the assessee, Shri Hemraj Mundada for AY 2006-07. It is pertinent to mention here that the Appellant is a resident of this Society and the documents sought by him were provided by the CPIO, however, the Appellant has brought out some discrepancy in those documents and sought clarification from the CPIO. The Appellant was informed that the CPIO has provided the documents available with his records and any query with regard to these documents may be made with PMC, Pune as the PMC has issued those documents. Aggrieved took the matter to FAA and finally before the Hon'ble CIC.
The Hon'ble CIC vide a composite order in CIC/CCITP/C/2023/631714 & 648988 CIC/CCITP/A/633176 & 649168 dated 01.10.2024 dismissed the appeals filed by Shri Kamal Kashyap stating that the "Respondents has provided information to the Appellant in their records and in view of the applicability of the above ratio, the commission finds no scope for its intervention in these matters"
Simultaneously, the Appellant has also filed a writ petition in WP No.11308/2024 dated 09.04.2024 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide order dated 05.12.2024 disposed off the writ as withdrawn. The order is reproduced as under:
".. 1) As we expressed our view that, Petitioners have no locus standi to file present Petition for the substantive reliefs prayed for in Petition, learned counsel for the Petitioners on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw Petition unconditionally."Page 3 of 8
06. Sir, the Appellant was provided with the documents sought by him available on records of the CPIO, as he was the resident of the same society "Leela Garden" however, in the present case, the Appellant has sought documents with respect to another project of the assessee, Shri Hemraj Mundada i.e. "ALCOVE" at Pimple Saudagar, Pune, wherein the Appellant didn't have a Flat and he also could not produce any explanation as to why the information sought by him is in larger public interest. Hence, the documents were not provided by the CPIO.
07. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the undersigned prays before your Honour to dismiss the appeal of the assessee, if deemed fit."
Decision:
5. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, noted that the Appellant sought completion certificates and related documents submitted by the assessee or the Municipal Corporation concerning the "ALCOVE" project, relevant to ITAT case No. 1762/PUN/2018. The Respondent denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, on the grounds of lack of public interest and objections from the third party (builder Shri Hemraj Mundada) regarding disclosure. The Appellant remained absent despite notice and in his absence, the submissions made by the Respondent remains uncontroverted.
6. It is also noted that similar appeals filed by the Appellant had been dismissed earlier by the Commission in a common order dated 01.10.2024 and a writ petition filed by the Appellant in the Bombay High Court had also been withdrawn unconditionally.
7. 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 the 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 Page 4 of 8 the stand taken by the Respondent in denying the information. 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 5 of 8 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 6 of 8 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 7 of 88. In view of the above observations made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the reply having been given, the Commission finds that appropriate reply has been given by the Respondent and intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, O/o the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 2, PMT Building, Shankar Seth Road, Pune - 411037 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)