9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come Tax Department summoned the petitioner's wife to present her case before them. Meanwhile, the petitioner made repeated requests to the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) to know the status of the hearing and TEP proceedings. On failing to get a response from the second and third respondents, he moved an application under the Act in November, 2005. He requested for the following information : (i) Fate of petitioner's complaint (tax evasion petition) dated 24-9-2003, (ii) What is the other source of income of petitioner's wife Smt. Saroj Nirmal than from teaching as a primary teacher in a private school? (iii) What action the Department had taken against Smt. Saroj Nirmal after issuing a notice u/s 131 of the Income tax Act, 1961, pursuant to the said Tax Evasion Petition? 3. The application was rejected by the second respondent (the Public Information Officer, designated under the Act by the Income Tax Department) on 10th January, 2006 under Section 8(1) of the Act, by reasoning that the information sought was personal in nature, relating to dowry and did not further public interest. The relevant portion of this provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the entire process of investigation and tax recovery, if any, is complete in every respect. 7. The petitioner contends that the first respondent was correct in allowing disclosure of information, by holding that Sections 8(1)(j) did not justify withholding of the said information, but incorrectly applied Sec. 8(1)(h) of the Act. He submits that the disclosure of the said information could not in any way impede the investigation process and that the respondents have not given any reasons as to how such disclosure would hamper investigation. On the other hand, he contends, the information would only help in absolving himself from the false prosecution and criminal harassment. Moreover, he contends that under Section 10 of the Act non-exempt information could have been provided to him after severing it from the exempt information. He in fact applied to the second and third respondent under the aforesaid provision but was informed that the matter was still under investigation. 8. In August, 2006 the petitioner filed a contempt petition before the CIC for non-compliance of order dated 8th May, 2006. Pursuant to this, the CIC asked the second and third respondent to take ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive and impart information and ideas through any media, regardless of frontiers'. In Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India and Ors. v. Cricket Association of Bengal and Ors. [(1995) 2 SCC 161] the Supreme Court remarked about this right in the following terms : The right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to receive and impart information. For ensuring the free speech right of the citizens of this country, it is necessary that the citizens have the benefit of plurality of views and a range of opinions on all public issues. A successful democracy posits an 'aware' citizenry. Diversity of opinions, views, ideas and ideologies is essential to enable the citizens to arrive at informed judgment on all issues touching them. This right, to information, was explicitly held to be a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India for the first time by Justice K.K. Mathew in State of UP v. Raj Narain [(1975) 4 SCC 428]. This view was followed by the Supreme Court on a number of decisions and after public demand, the Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted and brought into force. 12. The Act is an effectuation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dha Devi Gupta [(2005) 2 SCC 201]; B.R. Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2001) 7 SCC 231] and V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy [(1977) 3 SCC 99]. Adopting a different approach would result in narrowing the rights and approving a judicially mandated class of restriction on the rights under the Act, which is unwarranted. 14. In the present case, the orders of the three respondents do not reflect any reasons, why the investigation process would be hampered. The direction of the CIC shows is that the information needs to be released only after the investigation and recovery in complete. Facially, the order supports the petitioner's contention that the claim for exemption made by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are untenable. Section 8(1)(j) relates only to investigation and prosecution and not to recovery. Recovery in tax matters, in the usual circumstances is a time consuming affair, and to withhold information till that eventuality, after the entire proceedings, despite the ruling that investigations are not hampered by information disclosure, is illogical. The petitioner's grouse against the condition imposed by the CIC is all the more valid since he claims it to be of immense relevance, to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
