Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › R. K. Jain vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)

R. K. Jain vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 11, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (r_k_jain_RTI_tribunal_members.pdf)


RTI: Tribunal Member’s ACR Can Be Disclosed If In “Public Interest”

The Petitioner claimed that pursuant to complaints of corruption against Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member, CESTAT, the President of the CESTAT had made adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram for the year 2000-01 and that the Ministry of Finance had opened a file for follow up action. However, as no proper action was not taken in the matter and the file was closed in favour of Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, the Petitioner filed a RTI application seeking inspection and copies of the file. The application was rejected by the CPIO of CESTAT, the First Appellate Authority & the CIC on the ground that the ACR grades & file notings could not be disclosed to third parties. On a Writ Petition filed to challenge the non-disclosure, HELD:

The ACR & the Follow up file are an integral part of the ACR record of the officer. In Arvind Kejriwal vs. CPIO AIR 2010 Delhi 216 it was held that except in cases involving overriding public interest, the ACR record of an officer cannot be disclosed to any person other than the officer himself/herself. As the CIC has not examined whether larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information sought by the Petitioner in this case, matter remanded with the direction the information should be disclosed if the CIC comes to a conclusion that larger public interest justifies the disclosure.

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Panchratan Hotels (HP High Court) 

    S. 170 provides that where there is a “succession of business”, the predecessor has to be assessed in respect of the income upto the date of succession and the successor has to be assessed thereafter. 100% of the assessee’s shares were sold by the existing shareholders to another person….
  2. Associated Capsules Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) 

    The argument of the Revenue that s. 80IA(9) mandates that the deduction u/s 80HHC has to be computed by reducing the amount of profits and gains allowed as deduction u/s 80IA(1) is not acceptable. S. 80IA(9) uses the words ‘shall not be allowed’ and not the words ‘shall not…
  3. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court) 

    The assessee has “accepted and admitted” that it has not given details with regard to proportionate expenses relatable to tax free income and argued that it was not required to disclose the same as s. 14A was not in the statute book when the ROI was filed. However, the…
  4. CIT vs. Swaraj Mazda Ltd (P&H High Court) 

    The AO had issued a certificate u/s 195(2) authorizing the remittance without deduction of tax at source. As this certificate was not cancelled u/s 195(4), the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source and could not be treated as assessee in default. The issue whether the payments…
  5. CIT vs. M/s Khemchand Motilal Jain (Madhya Pradesh High Court) 

    While kidnapping is an offense, paying ransom is not; Bar in Explanation 1 to s. 37(1) not attracted The assessee, engaged in manufacture and sale of bidis, sent its whole-time director to a forest area for purchase of tendu leaves. … CIT vs. M/s Khemchand Motilal Jain (Madhya…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*