2002 (2) TMI 24 - HC - Income Tax

Petitioners submits that the trial court has every power to summon the documents if any authority has refused to grant certified copies of the documents and the lower court grossly erred in dismissing the said I.A. on the ground that the court cannot summon the documents if the Commissioner of Income-tax refused to issue certified copies as there is no public interest under section 138 - In view of the above observation by the trial court that both the sides have adduced sufficient evidence, and also the fact that the trial court has exercised its discretion in refusing to summon those documents, and also the documents sought to be produced are not by the assessee as observed by the apex court in the case of Tulsiram Sanganaria, I do not find any error on the face of the record committed by the trial court to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under article 227 of the Constitution of India. - this revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage.

Issues:
1. Refusal of Commissioner of Income-tax to provide certified copies of documents.
2. Power of the trial court to summon documents.
3. Evidentiary value of documents produced by a person other than the assessee.
4. Sufficiency of evidence adduced by both parties.

Issue 1: Refusal of Commissioner of Income-tax to provide certified copies of documents:
The civil revision petition was filed against the orders of the Fourth Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, dismissing the application to summon specific financial documents due to the Commissioner of Income-tax's refusal to provide certified copies. The petitioners argued that the trial court erred in dismissing the application based on the public interest clause under section 138 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. They contended that the trial court had the power to summon documents despite the refusal by the Commissioner. The petitioners relied on the provision of section 138(b) of the Act, emphasizing that the decision of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to furnish information is final and not subject to challenge in court.

Issue 2: Power of the trial court to summon documents:
The petitioner's counsel asserted that the trial court had the authority to summon documents even if the Commissioner of Income-tax declined to provide certified copies. They cited a Supreme Court case, Dagi Rain Pindi Lall v. Trilok Chand Jain, to support their argument that the court's power to summon documents is not affected by the Commissioner's decision under section 138(1)(b) of the Act. However, the respondents argued that documents produced by a person other than the assessee have no evidentiary value, as highlighted in the case of Tulsiram Sanganaria v. Smt. Anni Rai. The trial court, considering both parties' evidence and the nature of the documents sought, exercised its discretion to refuse the summons.

Issue 3: Evidentiary value of documents produced by a person other than the assessee:
The respondents contended that documents like assessment orders are admissible as evidence only if produced by the assessee. Citing the Tulsiram Sanganaria case, it was argued that documents requested by a non-assessee, even if produced, lack evidentiary value. The trial court concurred, noting that the documents were not sought by the assessee but by another party intending to use them as evidence against the assessee.

Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence adduced by both parties:
The trial court observed that both sides had presented sufficient evidence, leading to the dismissal of the application to summon documents. It was noted that the trial court's discretion in refusing to summon the documents was based on the adequacy of evidence presented by the parties. Considering the observations and the legal precedents regarding the evidentiary value of documents, the High Court found no error on the trial court's part to warrant interference in the impugned order under its supervisory jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the revision petition at the admission stage but directed the trial court to expedite the disposal of the case within three months. The judgment emphasized the limitations on summoning documents when not produced by the assessee and upheld the trial court's discretion in evaluating the sufficiency of evidence presented by both parties.

← Previous Next →