2007 (12) TMI 547 - Commission - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disclosure of daily proceeding minutes maintained by ITAT Bench members.
2. Provision of a copy of the ITAT decision in the case of Escorts Limited.
3. Inspection of all case records related to the appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue I: Disclosure of Daily Proceeding Minutes Maintained by ITAT Bench Members

The appellant requested copies of the daily proceeding minutes maintained by ITAT Bench members. The CPIO denied this request, stating that these minutes are part of judicial proceedings and meant only for the use of the members. The appellant argued that the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) promotes transparency and accountability, and such information should be disclosed. However, the Commission concluded that judicial proceedings are conducted openly, but judicial authorities must operate independently without interference. The Commission cited Hon'ble Justice Vivian Bose's observations in Surendra Singh v State of UP, emphasizing that notes and drafts made by judges are not final judgments and thus not part of the record 'held' by the public authority. Consequently, the Commission decided that the RTI Act should not be used to interfere with judicial work, and the appellant agreed not to press for this request.

Issue II: Provision of a Copy of the ITAT Decision in the Case of Escorts Limited

The appellant sought a certified copy of the ITAT decision for the assessment year 2001-2002. The CPIO initially denied this request, stating that copies could only be provided to concerned parties or their authorized representatives. However, the First Appellate Authority directed the Registry to supply the certified copy to the appellant, as specific provisions under the Income Tax Act allow for such disclosure. The Commission upheld this decision, noting that Rule 35 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, mandates that orders be communicated only to the assessee and the Commissioner. The Commission emphasized that the RTI Act does not override existing laws concerning the dissemination of information related to judicial proceedings.

Issue III: Inspection of All Case Records Related to the Appeal

The appellant requested to inspect all case records related to the appeal. The CPIO denied this request, stating that inspection could only be granted to concerned parties or their authorized representatives. The First Appellate Authority deferred the decision pending the Central Information Commission's (CIC) direction on a similar matter. The Commission noted that the RTI Act does not intend to conflict with judicial decisions regarding information disclosure. Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act exempts information expressly forbidden to be published by any court or tribunal. The Commission remanded the matter to the First Appellate Authority to determine if there was a judicial order from the Tribunal regarding the disclosure of the requested information. If such an order exists, the appellant's remedy lies under the Income Tax law, not the RTI Act. If no such order exists, the First Appellate Authority must consider the appeal under the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the RTI Act and pass a speaking order within a fortnight.

Decision and Reasons:

1. The RTI Act aims to promote transparency and accountability in public authorities but does not intend to interfere with judicial proceedings.
2. Judicial proceedings are conducted openly, but judicial authorities must operate independently without interference.
3. The RTI Act does not override existing laws concerning the dissemination of information related to judicial proceedings.
4. Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act exempts information expressly forbidden to be published by any court or tribunal.
5. The matter is remanded to the First Appellate Authority to determine if there is a judicial order from the Tribunal regarding the disclosure of the requested information. If such an order exists, the appellant's remedy lies under the Income Tax law. If no such order exists, the First Appellate Authority must consider the appeal under the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the RTI Act and pass a speaking order within a fortnight.