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/2023/609795
Sandeep Kumar .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
OFFICE OF THE CIT EXEMPTIONS,
ROOM NO 201, SECOND 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 : 13-01-2023
CPIO replied on : 10-02-2023
First appeal filed on : 10-02-2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 13-02-2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21-02-2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.01.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. Kindly provision the date of registration of Korba Development Educational Society, Kosa Bandi, Korba Town, Korba,495677 with Income Tax department under exempt category under section 12 A of the IT Act.Page 1 of 7
2.Kindly provision true copies of the Tax exemption and relief under form 10(8) of IT Act 1961 submitted by the charitable trust Korba Development Educational Society, Kosa Bandi, Korba Town, Korba, 495677 for year 2001-02 to 2021-22."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 10.02.2023 stating as under:
"The information sought for by the applicant is available in public domain at https://incometaxindia.gov.in/Pages/list-of-exempt-institution-form-10 ac.aspx"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.02.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 13.02.2023, held as under: -
"Aggrieved with the CPIO's order dated 10.02.2023, the appellant has filed following appeal (Registration Number: CCABH/A/E/23/00012):
"Vide reference cited 1, RTI was filed with the concerned CPIO regarding certain public information held under the purview of the department. The application contained points 1 and 2 for requesting information. However, only information regarding point 1 had been provided. As information regarding point 2 had not been provided, appeal under section 19(1) is hereby filed with the appellate authority, RTI of the competent office to kindly provision public information on point 2. This is submitted for your kind perusal and suitable action please."
I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant as well as the order of CPIO. The information sought for by the appellant in Point Number 2 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:
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.Page 2 of 7
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 is 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 Respondent: Rajiv Joseph, CPIO, appeared through video conference.
The appellant inter alia submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply given by the respondent as desired information was not provided on point No.
2 of the RTI application. He stated that he has sought information regarding a charitable trust seeking Income tax exemptions from proceeds of charitable activity and beneficiary of Government Subsidies (RTE 2009 subsidy), GST Exemptions etc. Therefore, the exemption claimed was not sustainable in the eyes of law. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information free of cost.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided point-wise reply to the appellant vide letters dated 10.02.2023 and 13.02.2023. The respondent informed that information sought on point No. 1 of the RTI application was available in public domain. As regards point No. 2, 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:
Page 3 of 7The 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 10.02.2023 and 13.02.2023 wherein the information sought on point No. 1 was provided. As regards point No. 2, 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 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.Page 4 of 7
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 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.Page 5 of 7
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 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 Page 6 of 7 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."
In 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 7 of 7