2002 (7) TMI 35 - HC - Income Tax

This revision application is directed against the order dated May 4, 2002, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aska, in T.S. No. 65 of 1997 rejecting the petition filed under Order 13, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short C.P.C. ), by defendant No. 1, the petitioner herein, with a prayer to call for certain documents from the office - In the case at hand, the income-tax authorities have not claimed privilege. It is the court on its own which has come to a finding that the documents called for by one of the parties cannot be summoned from the income-tax authorities because of the restrictions imposed under sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act. In view of the judicial pronouncements on the subject and discussions made above, the trial court has fallen into error by terming the documents sought to be called for as privileged documents. The order passed by the trial court is totally wrong and is accordingly set aside. However, before summoning the documents in question the trial court should at first satisfy itself that the documents are required for the purpose of determining the issue raised in the suit.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of petition under Order 13, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for calling certain documents from the Income-tax Office and Sub-Registrar's office.

Analysis:
The revision application challenged the order rejecting a petition under Order 13, rule 10 of the CPC to call for documents from the Income-tax Office and Sub-Registrar's office. The petitioner, defendant No. 1, sought income-tax returns and statements filed by the plaintiff before the income-tax authority to prove an earlier partition of ancestral properties. The trial court rejected the prayer citing restrictions under sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act and the Income-tax Act. The petitioner argued that the court erred in deeming the income-tax records as privileged documents, while the opposite party contended that the restrictions under the relevant laws prevented the documents' summons.

The court analyzed section 138 of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that it allows the Commissioner to furnish information if in the public interest, not for private purposes. It highlighted that the repeal of certain provisions removed restrictions on courts to call for documents, even from income-tax authorities. Referring to a previous decision, the court clarified that courts have the jurisdiction to summon relevant documents, and the Commissioner cannot refuse to comply with a court order. The court also discussed the privilege of documents under the Evidence Act, emphasizing that it is for the court to decide on granting or refusing privilege.

In the present case, the court found that the income-tax authorities did not claim privilege, and the trial court erred in deeming the documents as privileged without proper justification. The order terming the documents as privileged was set aside, emphasizing the need for the trial court to ensure the documents' relevance to the suit issue before summoning them. However, the order directing the petitioner to obtain certified copies from the Sub-Registrar's office was upheld, requiring no interference.

In conclusion, the civil revision was partially allowed, with no costs imposed. The judgment clarified the court's authority to summon relevant documents, emphasizing the need for proper justification and relevance to the suit issue before their summons.