Facts of the Case

  1. The petitioner, Naresh Behal, was married to Ms. Namrata Behal on 17 January 2000.
  2. Subsequently, matrimonial disputes arose between the parties.
  3. In proceedings before the Crime Against Women Cell, allegations were made that approximately Rs. 35 lakhs had been spent on the marriage by the father of Ms. Namrata Behal.
  4. On 17 January 2006, the petitioner approached the Commissioner of Income Tax seeking an inquiry into the alleged expenditure incurred by Respondent No. 5 on the marriage of his daughter.
  5. As no response regarding the status of the inquiry was received, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
  6. Certain information was supplied by the Income Tax Department.
  7. However, information concerning disclosures made by Respondent No. 5 in his income tax returns and matters relating to the investigation was denied.
  8. The Department relied upon Section 138(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act and Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
  9. The petitioner challenged the refusal before the appellate authorities.
  10. The first appeal was dismissed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax.
  11. The second appeal before the Central Information Commission (CIC) was also rejected.
  12. Aggrieved by the CIC’s decision, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether information relating to investigations conducted by the Income Tax Department could be disclosed under the RTI Act.
  2. Whether the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) was exempt from the RTI Act by virtue of Section 24 and the Second Schedule.
  3. Whether information sought by the petitioner was independent of the investigation proceedings.
  4. Whether the decision in Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner was applicable to the facts of the present case.
  5. Whether the CIC was justified in refusing disclosure of the requested information.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  1. The petitioner contended that he was entitled to know the status and outcome of the inquiry initiated on the basis of his complaint.
  2. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner, W.P.(C) No. 3114 of 2007, where disclosure of information concerning investigation into allegations of extravagant marriage expenditure had been directed.
  3. The petitioner argued that the information sought through his RTI application was separate and independent from the investigation itself.
  4. It was further submitted that the information requested would be available with the Commissioner of Income Tax and not exclusively with the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation).
  5. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the exemption under Section 24 of the RTI Act was not attracted.

Respondent’s Arguments

  1. The Income Tax Department contended that the information sought pertained to matters under investigation.
  2. Disclosure was opposed on the ground that it related to third-party information and would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
  3. The Department relied upon Section 138(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act and Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
  4. It was further submitted that the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) had been included in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act through a Gazette Notification dated 28 March 2008.
  5. Consequently, by virtue of Section 24 of the RTI Act, information held by the Income Tax Investigation Wing was completely exempt from disclosure.
  6. The respondents therefore supported the orders passed by the CIC and other authorities.

Court Findings / Order

  1. The Delhi High Court examined the effect of the Gazette Notification dated 28 March 2008 by which the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) was included in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act.
  2. The Court observed that Section 24 grants complete exemption to organizations included in the Second Schedule.
  3. Consequently, information held by such exempt organizations is ordinarily outside the scope of disclosure under the RTI Act.
  4. The Court distinguished the earlier decision in Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner on the ground that the aforesaid notification had not been issued when that case was decided.
  5. The Court noted that the information sought by the petitioner was directly connected with complaints previously lodged by him and the investigations initiated pursuant thereto.
  6. The Court rejected the contention that the information sought was independent of the investigation process.
  7. It held that the information was intrinsically linked to the investigations conducted by the Income Tax Investigation Wing.
  8. The Court further held that the statutory bar under Section 24 of the RTI Act was absolute in relation to information held by the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation).
  9. No ground was found to interfere with the order passed by the Central Information Commission.
  10. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Important Clarification

  • Information held by the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) enjoys statutory protection under Section 24 of the RTI Act once the organization is included in the Second Schedule.
  • The exemption under Section 24 operates independently of the exemptions contained in Section 8 of the RTI Act.
  • Information relating to ongoing or completed investigations cannot be disclosed merely because the applicant initiated the complaint.
  • Third-party tax information is entitled to privacy protection under both the Income Tax Act and the RTI framework.
  • Earlier decisions directing disclosure may not apply where subsequent statutory notifications alter the legal position.
  • The inclusion of an organization in the Second Schedule creates a substantial and often complete exemption from RTI disclosure obligations.

Sections Involved

Right to Information Act, 2005

  • Section 8(1)(g)
  • Section 24
  • Second Schedule to the RTI Act

Income Tax Act, 1961

  • Section 138(1)(b)

Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2010:DHC:11512/SMD15042010CW80782008_164413.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.