TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (8) TMI 52
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndent to dispose of that application in accordance with law and in the light of exhibit P-8 issued to him by the Commissioner of Income-tax, respondent No. 2 herein. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 are brothers. On January 7, 1965, there was an agreement between the brothers regarding the management of certain properties. There was a modified agreement dated October 30, 1986, which is marked as exhibit P-1 by which respondent No. 4 was put in possession of the properties. The properties were left in common and there is a dispute between the parties as to whether a wakf has come into existence in respect of their properties. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 4 has violated the terms of the agreement and it has therefo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 138(1)(b), the request cannot be acceded to and the application as regards the paper book filed by respondent No. 4 before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) forms part of the appeal records and was not available in the third respondent's office. Thereupon, the petitioner moved the second respondent, Commissioner of Income-tax by exhibit P-7 and, by exhibit P-8, the Commissioner of Income-tax informed the petitioner that his request cannot be granted and that the petitioner could contact the first respondent appellate authority for a copy of the appellate order which also he had sought. It was also observed that, in case the petitioner was a trustee of the properties, he may request for a copy of the appellate order. It is thereafter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case and not any and every record that respondent No. 4 had submitted to the Income-tax Department. This court also observed that it was not clear how the documents could help the petitioner to sustain his case in the plaint. Thus this court endorsed the views of the trial court that the documents sought to be summoned by the petitioner were not necessary for a proper disposal of the suit. The petitioner filed this original petition on May 7, 1993, praying for quashing the order, exhibit P-4, dated December 14, 1992, and praying further that there may be a direction to entertain his application, exhibit P-9, dated February 26, 1993. The prayers in this original petition are objected to by respondent No. 4 by contending that these documents....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come-tax (Appeals) in respect of the assessments made against respondent No. 4 for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1988-89. The first respondent has not considered this application. The position in law on the scope of section 138(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act has been recently clarified by the Supreme Court in the decision in Dagi Ram Pindi Lall v. Trilok Chand Jain [1992] 194 ITR 228 ; AIR 1992 SC 990. Though that case essentially related to the power of the court to summon the documents filed by an assessee before the income-tax authorities and the difference between the position prior to April 1, 1964, and that subsequent to April 1, 1964, the said decision has also discussed the question of privilege in respect of such documents. Speakin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pported by reasons to justify that public interest demanded the rejection of the request. It is to be noticed that the petitioner has a case that he is equally interested in the properties of what he calls the wakf and which, according to respondent No. 4, is property left in common. In either case, the petitioner has part ownership in the property left in common and the petitioner is seeking information in respect of an assessment against respondent No. 4 in which, according to the petitioner, the income from this common property had been excluded on the ground that they are wakf properties. It is also therefore necessary for the first respondent to consider whether the petitioner would be entitled to obtain a copy of the order of the firs....