9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aining to dowry related issues. He emphasized that the litigation was not a private matter against his wife/father-in-law and therefore, the denial of information could not be justified on the grounds that there was no public interest in the matter and that the issue was purely a personal one. The Appellant stated that in a welfare state, such as ours, the life and security of every individual was a matter which involved the state. Denial of information to him would result in a prolonged litigation of 10 years and more resulting in his losing the best years of his life and career. 5. Respondent stated that he had ascertained that Shri Munna Lal Saini does not file any Income-tax returns in this Income-tax office - Ward 3(1). Appellant stated that with the issue of PAN card which is a unique number, it will not be difficult to ascertain in which ward Shri Saini was filing his returns. DECISION NOTICE: 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the Appellant with great thrust and also by the Respondents. 7. The conviction and thrust with which the Appellant had pursued his case and made his submission explaining the reasons for which he needs the information are plaus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on'ble Sanjiv Khanna J. in his decision dated 30-11-2009 in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.. 8396/2009, 16907/2006, 4788/2008, 9914/2009, 6085/2008, 7304/2007, 7930/2009 AND 3607 OF 2007, wherein he stated " The proviso in the present cases is a guiding factor and not a substantive provision which overrides section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It does not undo or rewrite section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and does not itself create any new right. The purpose is only to clarify that while deciding the question of larger public interest i.e. the question of balance between 'public interest in the form of right to privacy and 'public interest in access to information is to be balanced." It is now apposite to peruse through section 138 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), which is as follows : "Section 138 - DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION RESPECTING ASSESSEES. (1) (a) The Board or any other income-tax authority specified by it by a general or special order in this behalf may furnish or cause to be furnished to - (i) Any officer, authority or body performing any functions under any law relating to the imposition of any tax, duty or cess, or to dealings in foreign exchange as defined in section 2( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time or the occurrence of intervening events since the matter contained in the documents themselves came into existence; (d) the seriousness of the issue in relation to which the production is sought; (e) the likelihood that production of the documents will affect the outcome of the case; (f) the likelihood of the injustice if the documents are not produced......" It was further stated "The courts would allow the objection if it finds that the documents relates to the affairs of the state and its disclosure would be injurious to the public interest, but on the other hand, if it reaches the conclusion that the document does not relate to the affairs of state or that the public interest does not compel its non-disclosure or that the public interest in the administration of justice in the particular case before it overrides all other aspects of public interest, it will overrule the objection and order disclosure of the document". I am inclined to say that the information sought is not granted immunity from disclosure as class of information. Protection of disclosure has to be ensured by balancing the two competing aspects of public interest i.e. when disclosure would cause injury or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound that it belongs to a class of documents which are protected irrespective of their contents, because there is no absolute immunity for documents belonging to such class. 15. In my view, having assessed the factual situation and the legal reasoning at hand, the correct position of law is that the right forum for seeking the IT Returns of an assessee by a third person is either the Chief Commissioner, Income-tax or the Concerned Court, if the matter is sub-judice. My view is furthered by the fact that the position after the repealing of section 137 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by Finance Act, 1964 is that the Court in a sub-judice matter can direct the IT Authorities to furnish the information pertaining to IT Returns of an assessee for inspection by the Court. Thus, disclosure will be warranted if such line of action is followed. There is no absolute ban on disclosure of IT returns. 16. Since, the present appeal raises important questions of law; it is our duty to apply the law as it stands today. In SP Gupta v. UOI ([1982] 2 SCR 365), a seven judges bench of the Apex Court held that "the Court would allow the objection to disclosure if its finds that the document relates to af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
