The Delhi High Court has put aside the order of the order by the Central Information Commission (CIC) for 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 was set aside by the Delhi High Court.
The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad clarified that under Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, the CIC does not have the jurisdiction to direct furnishing of information.
The Court said in the current case, the question is whether Section 138(2) of the IT Act which also contains a nonobstante clause would override Section 22 of the RTI Act or not.
The Court said that under Section 138(1)(b) of the IT Act any nformation 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.
The Court also said 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 Court has set aside the CIC order. and allowed the plea filed by IT Department.
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.
As per the plea stated 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.