2013 (4) TMI 522 - HC - Indian Laws

RTI application - writ of mandamus sought directing the respondents to supply the copy of CBDT circular/ instruction dated 19.06.2009 - whether the information with regard to scrutiny guidelines has all along been in public domain? - Held that - The expression, economic interest, takes within its sweep matters which operate at a macro level and not at an individual, i.e., micro level. Thus by no stretch of imagination can scrutiny guidelines impact economic interest of the country. These guidelines are issued to prevent harassment to assessees generally. It is not as if, de hors the scrutiny guidelines, the I.T. Department cannot take up a case for scrutiny, if otherwise, invested with jurisdiction, in that behalf. This is an information which has always been in public realm, and therefore, there is no reason, why the respondents should keep it away from the public at large. Thus, provisions of Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act would have no applicability in the instant case. There is nothing stated in the operative part which would seem to indicate that the CIC has come to the conclusion which it has, is based on the fact that, the economic interest of the country, will get effected. The CIC, in the operative part has merely recorded what has been conveyed to it vis-a-vis the procedure for selection of cases for scrutiny. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. The respondents shall supply the relevant scrutiny guidelines to the petitioner for the financial year 2009-10. The respondents shall hereafter upload the guidelines with regard to scrutiny on their website.

Summary

Issues:
1. Impugning the order of the Central Information Commission dated 12.07.2011.
2. Seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to supply the CBDT circular/instruction dated 19.06.2009.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, an advocate specializing in income tax law, filed an application under the Right to Information Act seeking information on cases excluded from scrutiny and scrutiny guidelines for the financial year 2009-10. The CBDT refused to provide the information, leading to appeals and subsequent dismissals. The petitioner argued that the scrutiny guidelines were in the public domain and necessary for advising clients on jurisdiction matters.

2. The respondents contended that disclosing scrutiny guidelines could lead to manipulation of returns, impacting economic interests. They highlighted the Computer Assisted Selection Scheme (CASS) and manual selection for cases involving economic manipulation. The guidelines issued at the start of each financial year applied to pending and future returns, ensuring fairness in selection.

3. The court observed that scrutiny guidelines were previously public and essential to prevent harassment of assessees. The term "economic interest" was defined in the context of the RTI Act, emphasizing macro-level impacts. The court concluded that scrutiny guidelines did not affect the country's economic interest and directed the respondents to provide the relevant guidelines for the financial year 2009-10 and upload future guidelines on their website.

4. The court set aside the impugned order, noting that the CIC did not base its decision on economic interest. The judgment emphasized the importance of transparency and public access to scrutiny guidelines, ultimately disposing of the writ petition with the specified directions for the respondents.