TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vestigation is being conducted, which would be impeded by disclosure of the information sought for by the respondent. It is stated by CBDT that the Election Commission of India forwards the affidavits submitted by MPs and MLAs disclosing their assets for verification to CBDT. Such affidavits are forwarded by CBDT to the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) for verification and the outcome of such verification is shared directly by the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) with the Election Commission of India. In the present case, it is difficult to accept that the information sought by the respondent pertains to allegations of corruption, as no such allegations have been made at any stage. The respondent had mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocopies of responses received from Director Generals of Income Tax (DGs) to CBDT s letter dated 11.08.2015. According to CBDT, the said information is excluded from the scope of the Act as it emanates from the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation). The said office is placed in the Second Schedule of the Act and, thus, any information received from the said office is excluded from the purview of the Act by virtue of Section 24(1) of the Act. CBDT also claims that the said information is exempt from disclosure under the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act. 3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to consider the aforesaid controversy are as under:- 4. The respondent filed an application dated 16.11.2015 seeking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision that the said information was exempt under the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act and, therefore, could not be provided at that stage. However, the FAA directed the CPIO to convey the outcome of the investigations once the same are concluded. 7. Aggrieved by the decision of the FAA rejecting the request for furnishing the responses received from the DGs, the respondent preferred a second appeal before the CIC. The said appeal was allowed by the impugned order and the CPIO was directed to supply the information sought for by the respondent. 8. The controversy relates to the verification of the affidavits filed by the Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) disclosing their assets to the Elec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. 12. It is clear from the above that only such information which would (i) impede the process of investigation; (ii) impede the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, is exempted from disclosure by virtue of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act. In the present case, there is no material to indicate that any investigation is being conducted, which would be impeded by disclosure of the information sought for by the respondent. It is stated by CBDT that the Election Commission of India forwards the affidavits sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent that in the present case, these conditions are not met. First of all, there is no assertion that any process of investigation is under way; and secondly, there is no material to indicate that disclosure of the information as sought would impede any such investigation. 15. The suggestion that the expression process of investigation includes within its ambit an assessment proceedings resulting in the assessment order is plainly unmerited. The assessment proceedings merely relate to scrutiny of the Income Tax Returns and an assessment income on tax payable by an assessee. Plainly, such proceedings do not take the colour of investigation. 16. The next question to be addressed is whether the information sought for by the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any Public Authority would also fall within the exclusionary provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act. Indisputably, the information sought for by the respondent emanates from the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigations) (various DGs who have called upon to submit a comprehensive report of verification). Thus, CBDT would be justified in denying such information to the respondent. 19. It was also contended by the respondent that since the information sought for by him related to allegations of corruption, the same falls within the exception to the exclusionary clause of Section 24(1) of the Act. The respondent is correct that by virtue of the first proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act, all information pertaining to allegations of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
