TMI Blog1968 (7) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng in the court of the 1st Additional Munsif, Bulandshahr. As stated above, the suit was for the recovery of arrears of rent and for the ejectment of the tenants including the petitioner from a shop of which the opposite parties Nos. 3 and 2 claim to be the owners. The petitioner as well as the remaining two defendants resisted the suit on the ground that the petitioner, and not the opposite parties Nos. 3 and 2, was the landlord. It appears that the petitioner is the ostensible owner of the property in dispute but the landlords contend that he is merely a " benamidar " and to prove that contention, they made an application before the Munsif to summon the income-tax assessment records of the petitioner to prove a statement alleged to have been made by him during the course of the proceedings for his assessment, to the effect that he was merely a " benamidar " of the property in dispute and that the real owners were the opposite parties Nos. 3 and 2. This application was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that income-tax proceedings were confidential proceedings and they could not be summoned or looked into by the court by reason of certain provisions of the Income-tax Act f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct "). As already stated above, section 54 of the Act and section 137 of the new Act provided for the secrecy and protection of the income-tax records. The question arises as to which of these two sections would apply. Before answering this question, it would be pertinent to examine the scope of the two sections so far as it is material for the present case. Section 137 of the new Act consists of five sub-sections of which subsections (1), (2) and (3) are material. Sub-section (1) declares all the particulars contained in the assessment record of a person to be confidential and forbids any court to require the production of such records. Subsection (2) similarly contains a prohibition against the disclosure of such particulars by a public servant. Sub-section (3) enumerates certain exceptions which are not material for the purpose of the present case except the exception contained in the last clause (xxi), which reads as follows : " (3) Nothing in this section shall apply to the disclosure-. . . (xxi) of so much of such particulars to any person as is evidence of the fact that any property does not belong to the assessee but belongs to such person : Provided that the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifferent intention appears, the repeal shall not.... (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed. " This again raises two questions : (1) did section 54 create any right, privilege or obligation ; and (2) is there anything in the repealing Act or in the subsequent enactments indicating any intention to destroy the rights, privileges or obligations created by section 54 which would otherwise be preserved by section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act after the repeal of section 54. Taking the second question first, it would be seen that the old Act was repealed by the new Act itself. By sub-section (1) of section 297 of the new Act, the old Act was repealed but there were various saving clauses of which clauses (a) and (c) may be reproduced : " (a) where a return of income has been filed before the commencement of this Act by any person for any assessment year, proceedings for the assessment of that person for that year may be taken and continued as if this Act had not been passed .... (c) any proceeding pending on the commencement of this Act before any income-tax authority, Appellate Tribunal or any c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere was nothing to prevent the legislature from saying so. A perusal of section 138 of the new Act would show clearly that the legislature had not used the words " this Act " in section 137 loosely or carelessly as it was mindful of the distinction between the old and the new Act as is evident from the underlined portion of section 138 which immediately follows section 137 and is in the following words : " Where a person makes an application to the Commissioner in the prescribed form and pays the prescribed fee for information as to the amount of tax determined as payable by any assessee in respect of any assessment made either under this Act or the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922), on or after the first day of April, 1960, the Commissioner may, notwithstanding anything contained in section 137, if he is satisfied that there are no circumstances justifying its refusal, furnish or cause to be furnished the information asked for. " It is, therefore, clear that the legislature did not indicate its intention to destroy the effect of section 54 of the old Act by deleting section 137 from or by amending section 138 of the new Act. This view of mine finds support in a recent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be allowed to be present at the time when their assessments take place and a similar right extends to them to insist that nothing which is brought on their assessment record by way of statement, returns, documents and evidence, would be revealed to anybody including a court. In this background, it is not possible to say that section 54 merely imposes an obligation upon the income-tax authorities without creating any corresponding right in favour of any particular person. This view of mine is supported completely by a recent decision of a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in 0. P. Aggarwal, Income-tax Officer, C-Ward, Jullundur v. State and of the Madras High Court in P. Kandaiah Thevar v. Third Income-tax Officer, Tirunelveli. The Madras High Court in the case of Ve. V. Sivagami Achi has, however, taken a contrary view on this point. The learned judges have expressed the opinion that section 54 of the old Act as also section 137 of the new Act did not create any right, privilege or obligation contemplated by section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act. For the reasons already indicated above and with great respect to the learned judges of the Madras High Court, I am unable to acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
