BY TIOL NEWS SERVICE

NEW DELHI, MAR 07, 2018: THE issue before the High Court is whether the DGIT (Investigation) wing of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) classifies as an intelligence or security agency, to the effect that any information sourced from it is exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2000. YES is the verdict. Concurrently, the Court also held that where any information was sought regarding any verification being conducted by the DGIT (Investigation) the same could not be denied on grounds that such verification was in fact an investigation. Thus another issue before the Court was whether where any information sought by a claimant under the RTI Act can be denied, where such information does not pertain to any ongoing investigation or impede such investigation. NO is the verdict.

Facts of the case

The petitioner herein is the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The respondent is an individual, who filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2000, seeking copies of the responses received from Director Generals of Income Tax (DGs) to CBDT's letter dated 11.08.2015. The petitioner replied that such information was exempted from disclosure, u/s 8(1)(h) of the Act. The petitioner further claimed that such information was excluded from the scope of the Act, since such information would have to be sourced from the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation). The CBDT further claimed that such office was covered under the Second Schedule of the Act and information sourced from there could be excluded from being shared, by virtue of Section 24(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the Central Information Commission passed an order directing that such information as sought by the respondent, be provided to him. Hence the present writ.

On hearing the CBDT's writ petition, the High Court held that,

++ considered scope of the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act. Thereby, assuming that the verification being conducted by the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) is in the nature of an investigation, the same is no ground for denial of information. Only such information which impedes the process of investigation can be denied. Thus, the CPIO should have specified that: (a) the investigation was conducted or was proposed; and (b) the information sought would impede the process of investigation. It is apparent that in the present case, these conditions are not met. First of all, there is no assertion that any process of investigation is under way; and secondly, there is no material to indicate that disclosure of the information as sought would impede any such investigation. The suggestion that the expression "process of investigation" includes within its ambit an assessment proceedings resulting in the assessment order is plainly unmerited. The assessment proceedings merely relate to scrutiny of the Income Tax Returns and an assessment income on tax payable by an assessee. Plainly, such proceedings do not take the colour of investigation.

++ considered scope of the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act. It indicates that the provisions of the Act would not apply to Intelligence and Security Organizations as specified in the Second Schedule. Further, any information received from such organizations falls under the exclusionary clause of Section 24(1) of the Act. Although the CBDT is not one of the offices, public organizations which are specified under the Second Schedule; however, the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) is. Thus, any information received from the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) by any Public Authority would also fall within the exclusionary provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act. Indisputably, the information sought for by the respondent emanates from the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigations) (various DGs who have called upon to submit a comprehensive report of verification). Thus, CBDT would be justified in denying such information to the respondent.

++ besides, in the present case, it cannot be said that the information sought by the respondent pertains to allegations of corruption, as no such allegations have been made at any stage. The respondent had merely highlighted that the net wealth of certain MLAs and MPs had increased fivefold and the respondent had sought verification of the same in order to bring about a higher level of transparency. No specific or general allegations of corruption were advanced by the respondent. Thus, it is not possible to accept that the information as sought for by the respondent falls within the purview of the Act even though it emanates from the organization which is placed in the Second Schedule. Therefore, the order passed by the CIC is unsustainable and is, accordingly, set aside. However, it is clarified that in the event any citizen was to make an allegation of corruption, the information as sought by the respondent would not be excluded from the scope of the Act.

(See 2018-TIOL-394-HC-DEL-IT)