The Delhi High Court recently held that Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) is an intelligence agency and such information sourced from it is exempted from disclosure under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The controversy, in the instant case, is related to the verification of the affidavits filed by the Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) disclosing their assets to the Election Commission. The respondent had submitted a list of MPs and MLAs whose assets have allegedly increased more than fivefold after the previous election (that is, during the term of their office as elected representatives after the previous election). The said list of MPs and MLAs were forwarded to the DGs for verification. Subsequently, the CIC directed disclosure of the information sought by the respondent and photocopies of responses received from Director Generals of Income Tax (DGs) to CBDT‟s letter dated 11.08.2015. However, the CBDT denied the same by stating that the information cannot be disclosed in view of section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Before the High Court, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the verification exercise carried out by the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) is only indicative in nature and any further action proposed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be followed up by an assessment order, which is passed by the concerned assessing officers.
After considering the submissions from both sides, Justice Vibhu Bhakru said that the provisions of the Act would not be applicable to Intelligence and Security Organizations as specified in the Second Schedule.
“Further, any information received from such organizations falls under the exclusionary clause of Section 24(1) of the Act. CBDT is not one of the offices, public organizations which are specified under the Second Schedule; but, the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) is. Thus, any information received from the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) by 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,” the Court said.
“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 corruption and human rights violations falls within the exception to Section 24(1) of the Act. In other words, notwithstanding that such information emanates from any of the organizations as specified under the Second Schedule of the Act, it is not excluded from the purview of the Act,” it added.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
