Right to Information Act, 2005
Sections 8(1)(j), 11 & 22—Order of the Central Information Commission directing the IT Department to disclose certain information to the respondent relating to PM CARES Fund—Challenged—Principle contention raised in the present writ petition is that any information relating to any assessee relating to income tax can be sought for only in the manner prescribed under Section 138 of the Income Tax Act and not under the RTI Act—Other contention is that information sought for by the respondent is exempted under Section 8(1)(1)(j) of the RTI Act—Income Tax Act, which is a special Act governing all the provisions and laws relating to income tax and super tax in the country will prevail over the RTI Act which is in the nature of a General Act—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—Information sought for by the respondent is clearly covered by Section 138(1)(b) of the IT Act—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—Information, as sought for by the respondent, has been sought from the CPIO of Income Tax Department and not from the PM CARES Fund—Petitioner 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—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—CIC does not have the jurisdiction to direct furnishing of information, provided for in Section 138 of the IT Act—In any case, even if they had the jurisdiction, the failure to give PM CARES, notice of hearing, would in itself have vitiated the impugned—Impugned order set aside—Petition allowed. [Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226; Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 138]
[Paras 15, 18, 20 & 21]