Introduction:

The Delhi High Court recently addressed a significant legal matter involving an RTI application seeking information on the tax exemption granted to the PM Cares Fund. Mumbai-based activist Girish Mittal filed the application, leading to a series of legal actions. The court, presided over by Justice Subramonium Prasad, scrutinized the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) order directing the Income Tax (IT) department to disclose details. The key contention was whether the CIC had the jurisdiction to make such a directive and if due process had been followed.

Arguments:

The Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the IT Department argued that the CIC lacked jurisdiction to demand information governed by Section 138 of the Income Tax Act. The CPIO contended that even if the CIC had jurisdiction, the absence of notice to PM Cares Fund during the hearing invalidated the CIC’s order. Girish Mittal, the RTI applicant, sought details on the tax exemption granted to the PM Cares Fund. Mittal argued that the information was crucial for public interest and accountability. He contended that the CIC’s order should be upheld, emphasizing the need for transparency in matters related to tax exemptions.

Court’s Judgement:

The court, led by Justice Subramonium Prasad, acknowledged the importance of the information sought by Mittal. However, it highlighted procedural lapses, emphasizing that the CIC did not have the authority to direct the furnishing of information covered by Section 138 of the Income Tax Act. The court asserted that even if the jurisdiction existed, the failure to notify PM Cares Fund of the hearing tainted the CIC’s order.

The court ruled in favor of the CPIO, stressing that information related to a third party, in this case, PM Cares Fund, required adherence to Section 11 of the RTI Act, necessitating notice to the concerned party. It further underscored that Section 138(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, which outlines the conditions for supplying information related to an assessee, prevailed over Section 22 of the RTI Act.