PM Cares Fund: Delhi High Court Sets Aside CIC Order Directing IT Department To Disclose Details Of Tax Exemption Under RTI

The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the Income Tax (IT) department to provide details regarding the tax exemption granted to the PM Cares Fund under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the CIC does not have the jurisdiction to direct furnishing of information provided for in Section 138 of the Income Tax Act (disclosure of information respecting assessees.)

“In any case, even if they had the jurisdiction, the failure to give PM CARES, notice of hearing, would in itself have vitiated the impugned [order],” the court said.

Justice Prasad allowed the plea moved by the CPIO of IT Department challenging the order passed by the CIC in relation to an application filed by Mumbai-based activist Girish Mittal under Section 6 of the RTI Act. Through this application, Mittal sought details regarding the tax exemption granted to the PM Cares Fund.

Mittal had asked for copies of all documents submitted by the PM Cares Fund in its exemption application, copies of file notings granting the approval, list of all the exemption applications filed before the IT Department from 1st April, 2019 till 31st March, 2020 along with the date of filing and date on which they were granted exemption and any application that had been rejected along with reasons for rejection.

The CIC order was stayed by a coordinate bench in July 2022.

While allowing the plea, the court said that the information, as sought for by Mittal, was sought from the CPIO of Income Tax Department and not from the PM CARES Fund and that the department does not treat PM CARES Fund as an authority.

“Since the information sought for by the Respondent relates to a third party, PM CARES Fund ought to have been heard. Section 11 of the RTI Act prescribes that any information related to a third party can only be divulged after giving notice to the said third party,” the court said.

It added: “In view of the above, the CIC ought to have followed the procedure specified under Section 11 of the RTI Act before ordering for grant of information as sought for by the Respondent herein.”

The court observed that Section 138(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act; which specifically states that information relating to an assessee can only be supplied subject to the satisfaction of Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, would prevail over Section 22 of the RTI Act.

“The information sought for by the Respondent herein is clearly covered by Section 138(1)(b) of the IT Act. The satisfaction of Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is, therefore, necessary before such information can be divulged. That satisfaction cannot be abrogated to any other authority under a general Act for divulging the information sought for,” the court said.

Mittal's RTI application was rejected by CPIO/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Headquarter)(Exemption) by virtue of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act stating that the information sought was personal in nature and was not related to any public activity or interest and would cause unwarranted invasion into the privacy of an individual.

The First Appellate Authority upheld the rejection of the Application by holding that though the PM CARES Fund had been registered under the Registration Act, 1908 and was a body owned by, controlled by and established by the Government of India, the Fund was completely financed by donations received from individuals, organizations, CSRs, Foreign individuals etc. and were not financed by the appropriate Government.

Since it was administered by Private individual Trustees, it was held that the Fund was not a "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

Mittal then approached the CIC challenging the Order of the First Appellate Authority. The CIC disposed the Second Appeal by stating that the issue of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act was being unnecessarily dragged into the matter since Mittal had not filed the RTI Application with PM Cares Fund, but with a public authority itself.

The CIC directed the CPIO to provide Mittal with information about documents submitted by the Fund with its exemption application and copies of file notings granting the approval. However, the CIC rejected Mittal's request for information regarding exemption applications between April 2019 and March 2020, and details of applications rejected.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 81