HIGH COURT OF
Director of Income-tax (Investigation)
v.
Bhagat Singh
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ.
AND SANJIV KHANNA, J
LPA 1377 of 2007
DECEMBER 17, 2007
Section
131 of Income-tax Act, 1961, read with section 8 of Right to Information Act,
2005 - Discovery, production of evidence, power regarding - Respondent’s wife
filed a criminal complaint against him alleging that she had spent certain
amount as dowry - Respondent, to defend criminal prosecution filed a tax
evasion petition (TEP) with department -
Later, respondent filed an application under Right to Information Act
for information regarding its TEP and action taken by department against his
wife pursuant to said TEP - Lower authorities rejected respondent’s application
but central Information Commissioner (CIC) allowed same holding that respondent
was entitled to information but only after completion of investigation and tax
recovery proceedings - However, department did not disclose information -
Whether since investigation process was not going to be hampered in any manner
and particularly in view of fact that such information was being furnished only
after investigation process was complete before Director (Investigation), no
prejudice would be caused in any manner to department even if said information
was disclosed and, therefore, department was to be directed to furnish same -
Held, yes
The
respondent was married to ‘S’, who filed a criminal complaint alleging that she
had spent/paid as dowry an amount of Rs. 10 lakh. Alleging that the aforesaid
claims were false, the respondent to defend the criminal prosecution,
approached the Income-tax Department with a Tax Evasion Petition (TEP). The
respondent made repeated requests to the Director (Investigation) to ascertain
and know the status of the hearing and TEP proceedings. Having failed in his
endeavour, the respondent moved an application under the Right to Information
Act praying for the information regarding (i) the fate of his complaint
(tax evasion petition); (ii)
the other source of income of his wife ‘S’ than from teaching as a primary
teacher in a private school and (iii) the action the department had taken
against ‘S’ after issuing a notice under section 131, pursuant to the said Tax
Evasion Petition. The application was rejected by the Public Information
Officer and appeal against same was rejected by the appellate authority. On
second appeal, the CIC set aside the order of rejection of information holding
that as the investigation on TEP had been conducted by Director (Investigation),
the relevant report was the outcome of public action and, therefore, the same
was required to be disclosed. However, it was directed that the report should
be disclosed only after the entire process of investigation and tax recovery,
if any, was completed. The Department had accepted the order of the CIC and,
therefore, the said order of the CIC had become final and binding. However, the
department had not disclosed all the information in terms of the aforesaid
order on the plea that notices under section 148 had been issued but no final
assessment orders had been passed. It was also stated that only after recovery
of taxes, if any, details could be furnished. On
writ against the order of CIC, the Single Judge held that no reason had come
out as to why the aforesaid information should not be supplied to the
respondent even at instant stage. The Single Judge also held that no reason had
been given as to why and how the investigation process could be said to be
hampered if the information was furnished and any prejudice being caused or
suffered by the department.
On
revenues’ appeal:
There
was a categorical order of the CIC directing that the information should be
disclosed after the entire process of investigation and tax recovery, if any,
was complete in every respect. The contention and defence based upon section
8(1)(i) was rejected. The said direction and findings rejecting the plea
under section 8(1)(i) to disclose information had not been challenged by
the appellant. The only question was of the stage and whether information
should be furnished at instant stage. There was no co-relation between the
information required and recovery of taxes, if any. Recovery of taxes had
nothing to do with investigation on TEP.
(
Information
sought for by the respondent related to fate of his complaint made in
September, 2003, action taken thereon after recording of statement of ‘S’ and
whether ‘S’ had any other source of income, other than teaching in a private
school. That information could be supplied as necessary investigation on those
aspects had been undertaken during last four years by the Director
(Investigation). In fact proceedings before the said director had drawn to a
close and the matter was now with the ITO i.e. the Assessing Officer. Under section
8(1)(h) information can be withheld if it would impede investigation,
apprehension or prosecution of offenders. It was for the appellant to show how
and why investigation would be impeded by disclosing information to the
respondent. General statements were not enough. Apprehension should be based on
some ground or reason. Information had been sought for by the complainant and
not the assessee. Nature of information was not such which interfered with the
investigation or helped the assessee. Information might help the respondent
from absolving himself in the criminal trial. It appeared that the appellant
had held back information and delayed the proceedings for which the respondent
felt aggrieved and filed the writ petition in the Court. There was no reason
for not supplying information to the respondent. In the grounds of appeal, it
was stated that the appellant was ready and willing to disclose all the records
once the same was summoned by the Criminal Court where proceedings under
section 498A of the Indian Penal Code were pending. If that was the stand of
the appellant, there was no reason for not furnishing the information at
instant stage as the investigation process was not going to be hampered in any
manner and particularly in view of the fact that such information was being
furnished only after the investigation process was complete as far as Director
of Income (Investigation) was concerned. It had not been explained in what
manner and how information asked for and directed would hamper the assessment
proceedings. (
Therefore,
no prejudice would be caused in any manner to the department even if the said
information was disclosed. There was no merit in the instant appeal, which
accordingly stood dismissed. (
CASE REVIEW:
Bhagat
Singh v. CIC (Appendix) - Affirmed.
Encl. Appendix
Single Judge case.