2008 (3) TMI 785 - Commission - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether such information can be provided to the appellant under the RTI Act when Section 138 of the Income Tax Act prohibits disclosure of such information?
2. Whether in such a situation the overriding provision as contained in Section 22 of the RTI Act comes into play?
3. Whether Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is applicable to the case of the appellant?

Summary:

Issue I: Applicability of Section 138 of the Income Tax Act
The respondents argued that Section 138(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which deals with the disclosure of information concerning an assessee, empowers the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to decide if it is in the public interest to provide such information. The decision of the Commissioner in this regard is final and cannot be questioned in any court of law. The respondents also noted that Section 138(2) provides an overriding effect, allowing the Central Government to restrict the disclosure of information by public servants.

Issue II: Overriding Provision of Section 22 of the RTI Act
The Commission referred to the principle that a special enactment or rule cannot be overridden by a later general enactment unless there is a clear inconsistency. The RTI Act, being a general law, does not override the specific provisions of Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, which is a special law concerning the disclosure of information about assesses.

Issue III: Applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act
The denial of information by the CPIO was based on Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts the disclosure of personal information that has no relationship to any public activity or interest or would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The appellant argued that he had a personal interest in the information as an informer entitled to a reward. The respondents countered that the reward was already calculated and paid based on the information provided by the appellant, and the appellant had no stake in other income assessed.

Decision and Reasons:
The Commission held that while assessment details are personal information, the amount of tax determined by the Settlement Commission and the amount actually paid by the assessee company is related to public activity or interest. Therefore, the CPIO should disclose this specific information. The Commission directed the CPIO to provide the information within two weeks from the date of the order.

Conclusion:
The Commission decided that the specific information regarding the tax determined and paid should be disclosed, while other assessment details could be withheld. The decision was announced on March 5, 2008, and notice of the decision was to be given free of cost to the parties.