The Karnataka High Court has established new guidelines that the Public Information Officer or Central Public Information Officer of the Income Tax Department must follow.
These guidelines are important for handling requests made by husbands or wives who are seeking information about their spouse’s income tax returns or financial records. This is usually done in relation to maintenance cases, where one partner is asking for financial support from the other.
On February 21, Justice Suraj Govindaraj specified the guidelines while partly permitting the petition submitted via the Income Tax Officer and Central Public Information Officer of the Income Tax Department, challenging the order dated April 12, 2019, passed via the Central Information Commission.
At the time of processing the application, personal details along with under Sections 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j) and 11, the Public Information Officer must notify the applicant that the precise procedure for getting the ITRs concerning maintenance proceedings is via the competent court, and not through the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The officer must furnish the applicant with the name, designation, and address of the Nodal officer designated to obtain and follow the judicial directions.
Where the application reveals that the applicant is a spouse asking for the information about maintenance proceedings, the officer must recommend that the applicant submit an application before the competent court.
Read Also: How Income Tax Software Assists Taxpayers After the Filing?
As per the Court, such guidelines are gender-neutral. The pronouns utlised in the guidelines are only for convenience, and must be construed to include all genders, it said.
Understanding the Court’s Suo Motu Powers
The high court stated that a competent court may, even without a formal application from the applicant spouse, exercise its suo motu powers to summon income tax returns and financial records from the IT Department.
This is permissible when the court believes that determining fair and just maintenance is not feasible without those records. In these cases, the court must document its reasons for exercising these powers and provide the taxpayer-spouse a chance to be heard before issuing the production order, the high court added.
| Case Title | Income Tax Officer vs. SMT Gulsanober |
| Case No. | WRIT PETITION NO. 34625 OF 2019 (GM-RES) |
| For Petitioner | SRI. M. Dilip and SRI. Y.V. Raviraj |
| For Respondents | Sri. Kemparaju, and Sri. Shanthi Bhushan |
| Karnataka High Court | Read Order |
