9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (5) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned trial judge has, however, allowed the prayer of the plaintiff in relation to the income-tax documents. The defendant has, therefore, come in revision before this court and asks that direction to be quashed as it is contrary to law and no jurisdiction vests in the learned trial judge to make the impugned order in view of the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Under section 54 of the Income-tax Act of 1922, the prohibition against disclosure of information was provided thus : " (1) All particulars contained in any statement made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced under the provisions of this Act, or in any evidence given, or affidavit or deposition made, in the course of any proceedings under this Act other than proceedings under this Chapter, or in any record of any assessment proceeding, or any proceeding relating to the recovery of a demand, prepared for the purposes of this Act, shall be treated as confidential, and notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), no court shall, save as provided in this Act, be entitled to require any public servant to produce before it any such return, accounts, documents or record or any p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax authority, be necessary for the purpose of enabling the officer, authority or body to perform his or its functions under that law." (b) Where a person makes an application to the Commissioner in the prescribed form for any information relating to any assessee in respect of any assessment made under this Act or the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on or after the 1st day of April, 1960, the Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that it is in the public interest so to do, furnish or cause to be furnished the information asked for in respect of that assessment only and his decision in this behalf shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court of law. Sub-section (2) of this section virtually remained the same. The learned trial judge, in dealing with this aspect of the matter, has said : " In regard to the first application, it is submitted from the plaintiff's side that the documents sought to be called for from the Income-tax Officer are relevant in so far as they would reveal the relevant fact that the defendant had paid rent for the suit house. It has been settled in the case, Digambar Bhuyan v. Nityananda Sahoo that such documents may be called for from the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uses Act will apply, and that it is not necessary that the repealing of new Act should expressly keep alive old rights and liabilities. They say that the line of enquiry should be, not whether the new Act expressly keeps alive old rights and liabilities, but whether it manifests an intention to destroy them. Leaving aside for a moment the question whether there is anything in the Finance Act of 1964 disclosing a different intention, it is clear that under section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act, the inadmissibility of the evidence of Sri Marar will continue, notwithstanding the omission of section 137 of the Income-tax Act of 1961 by the Finance Act of 1964. The matter can be looked at, first, from the point of view of the Income-tax Officer himself, and secondly, from the point of view of the Commissioner of Income-tax. From the point of view of the Income-tax Officer, he was under an obligation not to give evidence in court relating to the initials in question, and the circumstances under which they were affixed. This obligation accrued or was incurred under section 54 of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922 on August 17, 1957, itself in respect of the initials, because that was the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contained in section 137 of the Income-tax Act of 1961. Section 138(1) deals only with what the Commissioner may do when a party applies to him, and does not touch the sphere covered by section 137(1) of the Act of 1961, which lays down the prohibition of evidence or documents being tendered in court by the officer. When the matter came up for examination in the case of Chinnammal v. Kumidhini the learned judge approved the earlier decision referred to above and was not prepared to agree with the view taken by Sadasivam J. in the case of Income-tax Officer v. P. Ramaratnam, to which I shall refer when I deal with Mr. Sinha's submissions. In the case of Daulat Ram v. Som Nath a learned single judge of the Delhi High Court approved the view taken in Ramakrishna Mudaliar v. Rajabu Fathima Bukari, and did not agree with the view of Sadasivam J. A Bench of the Punjab High Court in the case of O. P. Aggarwal, Income-tax Officer v. State dealt with the same question and concluded thus : " The question that remains is whether the consequences as laid down in section 6 of the General Clauses Act arise despite the repeal of the Act of 1922 by the Income-tax Act, 1961. The general princip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Finance Act of 1964. On the basis of the principles indicated in the Punjab decision, O. P. Aggarwal, Income-tax Officer v. State, it would follow that there was no intention, manifested by the repealing provision or even the amendment brought to section 138 of the Act would not disclose a contrary intention. Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act is, therefore, attracted to the situation. Mr. Sinha, on the other hand, relies upon the decision of Sadasivam J. (already referred to) and a Bench decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Ve. V. Sivagami Achi v. Vr. Ve. Vr. Ramanathan Chettiar. It is true that the Division Bench in Ve. V. Sivagami Achi v. Vr. Ve. Vr. Ramanathan Chettiar disapproved the view taken by the two learned judges in the cases reported in Ramakrishna Mudaliar v. Rajabu Fathima Bukari and Chinnammal v. Kumidhini. The decision in Chinnammal v. Kumidhini was delivered by Veeraswami J., sitting as a single judge, and it is he who also delivered the judgment of the Division Bench in Ve. V. Sivagami Achi v. Vr. Ve. Vr. Ramanathan Chettiar. The Bench decision of the Madras High Court certainly supports the stand of Mr. Sinha, but I am not in a position to per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
