Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court

Income Tax Act’s Primacy Over RTI in Information Disclosure: Delhi High Court Quashes CIC Order on RTI

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has set aside an order by the Central Information Commission (CIC) that directed the disclosure of information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, emphasizing the primacy of the Income Tax Act over the RTI Act in matters of information disclosure about an assessee.

The core legal issue in this case revolved around the conflict between the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner, Central Public Information Officer, challenged the CIC’s order, which mandated the disclosure of information under the RTI Act. The information pertained to the application for exemption/deduction under Section 80G(2)(b) for donations to SHRI RAM JANMABHOOMI TEERTH KSHETRA.

The respondent filed an RTI application seeking various documents related to SHRI RAM JANMABHOOMI TEERTH KSHETRA’s application for tax exemption/deduction. The information was initially denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, and the CIC’s subsequent order to disclose the information led to this legal challenge.

Justice Subramonium Prasad, in his judgment, underscored the necessity of adhering to the legal provisions of the Income Tax Act, which restrict the disclosure of information about an assessee. The court highlighted that Section 138(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act takes precedence over the RTI Act, requiring the satisfaction of specified authorities before disclosing such information. The judgment also emphasized the legal obligation to follow judicial hierarchy and precedents set by larger benches and the Apex Court.

The High Court quashed the CIC order allowing the disclosure under the RTI Act, affirming the overriding effect of the specific provisions of the Income Tax Act. However, the court noted that it is open for the respondent to approach the appropriate authority under the Income Tax Act to seek the requested information.

Date of Decision: 28 February 2024

Central Public Information Officer vs. Kailash Chandra Moondra

Latest Legal News