9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (7) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs 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 forbidding the disclosure of any information contained in the income-tax records. This objection was overruled by the Munsif who, by his order dated the 19th August, 1963, directed the assessment records to be summoned leaving the question of the admissibility to be decided when the records were produced in the court. This order of the Munsif was later on slightly modified by another order dated the 28th August, 1963, under which he directed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) 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 assessee had, prior to such disclosure, been examined by the Income-tax Officer in respect of his right to such property. " This sub-clause (xxi) takes out of the fold of secrecy any statement or other documents mentioned in section 137(1) relating to the ownership of property. The statement dated the 13th January, 1960, is alleged to be a statement of that nature and would be covered by clause (xxi) quoted above. In other words, the statement in quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 court, by way of appeal, reference or revision, shall be continued and disposed of as if this Act had not been passed. " The repealing Act obviously does not disclose any intention of the legislature to destroy the effect of section 54 of the old Act. In fact by enacting section 137 in the new Act, the legislature's clear intention was to preserve intact the object of section 54 of the old Act. In 1964, however, section 137 was omitted from the new Act by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner 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 case decided by a learned single judge of the Madras High Court in Ramakrishna Mudaliar v. Mrs. Rajabu Fathima Bukari and approved by a Division Bench of the same court in Ve. V. Sivagami Achi v. Vr. Ve. Vr. Ramanathan Chettiar. A contrary view was taken by another learned judge of the Madras High Court in Income-tax Officer v. Ramaratnam, but, with respect, I do not agree with that view. This now brings me to the next question as to whether section 54 create ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 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 accept their view. I am of the firm opinion that the two sections in the old and the new Acts, viz., sections 54 and 137, respectively, were intended to create a right and a privilege in favour of the assessee and other persons concerned and it was for the preservation of that right or privilege that an absolute obligation was imposed upon the income-tax authorities never to divulge to anybody including a court any information from the assessment records. This que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
