Delhi High Court sets aside CIC order to provide RTI information on tax exemption allowed to PM Cares Fund

The Delhi High Court on Monday set aside an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the Income Tax department to provide information and copies of documents submitted by the PM Cares Fund while applying for exemption under the Income Tax Act [CPIO/Dy Commissioner of Income Tax HQ Exemption, New Delhi v Girish Mittal]..Justice Subramonium Prasad ruled that CIC does not have the jurisdiction to direct furnishing of information provided for in Section 138 of the Income Tax Act.The Court said Section 138 (2) of the Income Tax Act prevails over Section 22 of the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). "In the present case, the question which arose was whether Section 138(2) of the IT Act which also contains a nonobstante clause would override Section 22 of the RTI Act or not. In view of the fact that Section 138(1)(b) of the IT Act mandates 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, it can be said that Section 138(2) of the IT Act would prevail over Section 22 of the RTI Act," the Court held. It added that even if the CIC had the jurisdiction to direct the IT Department to provide the information, the Commission's failure to give PM CARES notice of hearing would in itself have vitiated the order. "The petitioner herein does not treat PM CARES Fund as an authority. Since the information sought for by the Respondent relates to a third party, PM CARES Fund ought to have been heard. Section 11 of the RTI Act prescribes that any information related to a third party can only be divulged after giving notice to the said third party. In view of the above, the CIC ought to have followed the procedure specified under Section 11 of the RTI Act before ordering for grant of information as sought for by the Respondent herein.".The Court, therefore, allowed the plea filed by IT Department and set aside the CIC order..The PM Cares Fund was granted approval under Section 80G of the IT Act. This allows taxpayers to claim deductions from various contributions made as donations to it.The IT department challenged the order passed by the CIC on an application under the RTI Act by Mumbai-based activist Girish Mittal.The plea stated that the information directed to be provided related to a third party (PM Cares Fund) which is a registered trust, and therefore, the CIC could not have been passed the order without giving the Fund an opportunity of being heard.It said that while passing the order, the CIC failed to consider the statutory bar contained in Section 138(l)(b) of the Income Tax Act. This provision leaves it to the discretion of the Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner on whether information related to any assessee should be disclosed in public interest or not.“Additionally, there is a further bar which states that his decision will be final and shall not be called into question in any court of law,” the plea said..Filed in May 2020, Mittal's application sought details regarding the tax exemption granted to the PM Cares Fund.Mittal sought copies of all the documents submitted by the PM Cares Fund in its exemption application and copies of file notings granting the approval.He also demanded a list of all the exemption applications filed from April 1, 2019 till March 31, 2020 and details of the applications rejected..The information was denied by the CPIO/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Headquarter)(Exemption) on June 15, 2020, stating that the information sought was personal in nature and was not related to any public activity or interest and would cause unwarranted invasion into the privacy of an individual.Mittal challenged the order before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) which upheld the rejection of application on August 19, 2020, holding that the PM CARES Fund doesn't fall within the purview of the RTI Act since it is not a public authority as defined under Section 2(h).This order was then challenged before the CIC, which on April 27, 2022, directed the CPIO to provide information about documents submitted by the Fund with its exemption application and copies of file notings granting the approval.However, it rejected the request for information regarding exemption applications between April 2019 and March 2020 and details of applications rejected..The IT Department was represented by Senior Standing Counsel Zoheb Hossain as well as Junior Standing Counsel Sajeev Menor and Advocate Vivek Gurnani. Advocates Pranav Sachdeva, Jatin Bhardwaj and Aakriti appeared for RTI applicant Girish Mittal. .[Read Judgment]