Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2021 (1) TMI 1089 - HC - Income TaxRTI Application seeking information against Private Parties - Allegation of tax evasion - Public interest - Single Judge held that Petitioner is not entitled to get the information in the form of his Income Tax Returns Status of Agriculturists disclosure as Business Income or not etc. and from the concerned Authorities of the Income Tax Department under provisions of the RTI Act with respect to private Respondent with whom the present Petitioner has some litigation with regard to the land in question which the Petitioner claims to have purchased and was again sold by the same Seller in favour of private Respondents also who claimed to be the Agriculturists under a Will - HELD THAT - We are satisfied that the order of the learned Single Judge does not require any interference in the present intra Court appeal and the same being without merit deserves to be dismissed. The Applicant - Petitioner in the present case firstly sought to emphasise that Section 6(2) of the RTI Act does not require any reasons to be given in the Application requesting for the information except those that may be available with him and necessary for contacting him. This in the submission of the learned counsel for the Applicant - Petitioner gives a larger latitude and platform to the Applicant under the said Act. The procedure for disposal of such request and application provided in Section 7 of the RTI Act while the other provisions of remedial nature for further appeal etc. are contained in Chapter 5 containing Sections 18 to 20 of the RTI Act. The overriding factor which enables such information to be disclosed notwithstanding the exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act appears to be larger public interest in such disclosure of information. The tenor of the application filed by the Applicant shows it is in the nature of a complaint against the private Respondents to the Income Tax Department rather than any bona fide public interest sought to be served by the disclosure of such information about the status of the private Respondents as agriculturists or not whether their right to get such status by way of a Will executed by a Testator is sustainable in law or not etc. Such personal or private information about the Assessees under the Income Tax Act are only meant to be dealt with investigated inquired or contested by the Assessees concerned before the Income Tax Authorities and they are not the information in public domain to be made available to any third party The only interest of the Petitioner who has been fighting against these private Respondents at all possible forums including the RTI Act and criminal complaints appears to be the only private interest and the name of a public interest is just a ruse or excuse given to the public authorities calling upon them to disclose such information to the Petitioner - Applicant. The provisions of the RTI Act are not meant to allow the parties to collect evidence from such Departments or Public Authorities to sub serve their private interest The sanctity of the Income Tax Assessment filing of Returns investigation and inquiry under the Act would be thrown open to third parties if such information was to be disclosed to third parties casually or carelessly. On the other hand the Act provides for keeping such information guarded in confidence with the Authorities. Therefore the bar under Section 138 of the RTI Act as well as the exemption against such disclosure contained in Section 8 of the RTI Act more particularly under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act completely seals the fate of the Applicant - Petitioner in the present case. The learned Single Judge in our opinion was absolutely correct and justified in dismissing the writ petition at the threshold.
|