1960 (1) TMI 36 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the second respondent is entitled to obtain certified copies of the income-tax returns and assessment orders of the deceased G.V. Rangaswami Naidu.
2. Interpretation and applicability of Section 54 of the Indian Income-tax Act.
3. The legal standing of the second respondent as a legal representative.
4. The right to inspect and obtain copies of public documents under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Certified Copies:
The petitioner sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the first respondent from granting certified copies of income-tax returns and assessment orders of the deceased G.V. Rangaswami Naidu to the second respondent. The petitioner argued that she is the sole legal representative of the deceased, and granting copies to the second respondent would contravene Section 54 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The second respondent, however, claimed her status as a legal representative entitled her to the copies.

2. Interpretation and Applicability of Section 54:
Section 54 of the Indian Income-tax Act prohibits the disclosure of income-tax statements by officials and prevents courts from compelling the production of such documents. The court emphasized that the protection under Section 54 is for the benefit of the assessee, allowing the assessee to waive this privilege. However, the court clarified that this right does not extend to legal representatives in cases of disputes among them. The court noted that the prohibition against disclosure is absolute, except for the exceptions recognized in Section 54(3).

3. Legal Standing of the Second Respondent:
The second respondent claimed her right to the documents as a legal representative of the deceased. The court examined whether one of several legal representatives could obtain copies of the documents. It concluded that the estate of a deceased person is represented by all legal representatives collectively, not by one alone. The court reasoned that allowing one legal representative to obtain copies could defeat the purpose of Section 54, especially in cases where there are disputes among the heirs.

4. Right to Inspect and Obtain Copies under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act:
The second respondent argued that she was entitled to the copies under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows persons with a right to inspect public documents to obtain copies. The court held that the right to inspect and obtain copies under Section 76 depends on having a direct and tangible interest in the document. The second respondent's interest in securing proper distribution of the deceased's properties did not constitute a direct and substantial interest in the income-tax returns and statements. The court also noted that there was no provision in the Indian Income-tax Act granting a right of inspection of income-tax returns or statements.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the second respondent did not have a direct and tangible interest in the income-tax returns and statements of the deceased. Therefore, she was not entitled to obtain certified copies of these documents. The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the third Additional Income-tax Officer, Salem, to conform to the provisions of Section 54 of the Indian Income-tax Act and not to grant copies of the returns and assessment orders for the years 1951-52 to 1956-57 to the second respondent. The petition was allowed, and the rule nisi was made absolute with no order as to costs.