TMI Blog1973 (11) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m - hether the department can refuse to produce the same on the ground of privilege - - - - - Dated:- 30-11-1973 - Judge(s) : SATISH CHANDRA., H. N. SETH. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by SATISH CHANDRA J. - The petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Union of India, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow, and the Income-tax Officer, Allahabad. It is directed against an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by which it rejected the claim of privilege raised by the petitioners under section 124 of the Evidence Act in regard to the production of certain documents and files. The respondent is the assessee-firm. It carries on business in betelnuts, etc., at Allahabad. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the assessee the Income-tax Officer imposed penalties upon it for the aforesaid assessment years. The assessee went up in appeal but failed. It then filed an appeal before the Tribunal. On 6th September, 1971, the assessee filed an application praying that certain records of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Varanasi and Allahabad, and the Income-tax Officer, C and B Wards, Allahabad, be summoned under section 255(6) read with section 181 of the Income-tax Act in the interest of justice and in order to enable the assessee to establish its grounds of appeal. The principal grievance of the assessee on the merits of the appeal was that the penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and their disclosure will injure public interest because it will materially affect freedom and candour of expression of opinion by the officers of the department and will impair the proper functioning of the public services. The Tribunal held that the proceedings for assessment or for imposition of penalty are quasi-judicial in nature. Section 119 of the Income tax Act, 1961, prohibits the Board from issuing any instructions or directions so as to interfere with the discretion of the assessing officer in regard to the decision of an individual case. The Income-tax Officer as well as the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who bad jurisdiction to impose penalty exercised quasi-judicial functions. They could not act on the advice of any othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment or penalty proceedings could not be held to be communications made in official confidence because in law these authorities were not entitled to exchange opinions or give advice in regard to judicial proceedings. In our opinion, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioners under section 124 of the Evidence Act. We are also satisfied that the petitioners made their claim of privilege more to bolster up their defence to the appeal filed by the respondent-assessee rather than in public interest. The documents sought to be summoned were in relation to the settlement reached between the parties. They consisted of draft assessment orders, etc. Disclosure of these documents on the file of the appeal filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
