W.P.(C)--5547/2017. Case: CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES Vs. SATYA NARAIN SHUKLA. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(C)--5547/2017 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | February 19, 2018 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 19.02.2018
+ W.P.(C) 5547/2017 & CM No. 23333/2017
CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES ..... Petitioner versus
SATYA NARAIN SHUKLA ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Senior Standing with Mr Gurpreet Shah Singh, Dy. CIT (O&D), CBDT.
For the Respondent : Respondent in person.
CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
JUDGMENT
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
-
The petitioner (hereafter „CBDT‟) impugns an order dated 29.05.2017 (hereafter „the impugned order‟) passed by the Central Commission (hereafter „the CIC‟) in a second appeal preferred by respondent under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, (hereafter „the Act‟).
-
By the impugned order, the CIC has, inter alia, directed the information sought by the respondent and photocopies of received from Director Generals of Income Tax (DGs) to CBDT‟s dated 11.08.2015. According to CBDT, the said information is from the scope of the Act as it emanates from the Directorate General Income Tax (Investigation). The said office is placed in the
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)
Act. CBDT also claims that the said information is exempt from under the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act.
-
Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to consider the controversy are as under:-
-
The respondent filed an application dated 16.11.2015 seeking following information under the Act:-
“(1) Photocopies of the letters no. F. No. 282/4/2012-IT(Inv) dated 1.10.2013 and No. 282/04/2012-IT(Inv. V)/140 dated 9.7.2015.
(2) Photocopies of the responses received from the DGs to the letter No. 282/4/012-IV (Inv. V)/192 dated
11.08.2015 from Shri Rajat Mittal, Under Secretary (Inv. V) CBDT.”
-
The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of CBDT to the petitioner‟s application by a letter dated 28.12.2015. He did provide the photocopies of the letters as sought for at point no.1 but indicated the contents of those letters. Insofar as the information point no.2 is concerned, the CPIO responded as under:-
“Since, the matter is under investigation, hence under the provisions of Section 8(h) of RTI Act, 2005 (Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders) information cannot be provided at this stage.”
-
Aggrieved by the response of the CPIO, the respondent preferred appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act before the First Appellate
(hereafter „the FAA‟). The said appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial