1973 (11) TMI 11
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of certain documents and files. The respondent is the assessee-firm. It carries on business in betelnuts, etc., at Allahabad. On 21st September, 1964, the income-tax department searched the business and residential premises of the assessee-firm and its partners, and seized certain papers. The respondent's case is that in order to avoid litigation and loss of reputation and with a view to purchase peace with the department the partners of the firm offered to be assessed on agreed quantums on the basis of materials obtained by the department as a result of the search. The partners approached the Income-tax Officer, Allahabad, as well as the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Varanasi. The parties held conferences and a settlement was rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee to establish its grounds of appeal. The principal grievance of the assessee on the merits of the appeal was that the penalty has been imposed in spite of a clear settlement that no penalty will be levied. On 29th October, 1971, the Tribunal held that the fact that there was a settlement has been referred to by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in his order dated 18th November, 1959. Prima facie, it appears that the materials sought to be summoned are relevant for the purpose of proving that there was a settlement. Oh this view, it directed the departmental representative to produce the records mentioned in the application. A perusal of the records mentioned in the application shows that the records were in respect of proceeding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner who bad jurisdiction to impose penalty exercised quasi-judicial functions. They could not act on the advice of any other person in the discharge of such duties. Therefore, these officers, while they were seized of penalty proceedings, were not entitled to take into confidence higher authorities as to how the assessment should be made and what penalty should be imposed. The correspondence made by them on the question of imposition of penalty does not consist of communications made in official confidence within the meaning of section 124 of the Evidence Act and consequently these are not privileged communications. The Tribunal also held that the disclosure of these documents will not affect the public interest. From a perusal of some....