9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Application to vary or set aside a special report by a special referee under a decree. Admissibility of certified copies of income-tax assessment orders in evidence. Analysis: The case involved an application to vary or set aside a special report made by a special referee under a decree. The suit was brought by two individuals against the defendant, initially claiming an account on the basis of wilful default and later alleging a partnership dispute regarding the ownership shares in a business. The main issue revolved around determining whether the defendant owned an eight annas share in the firm or a six annas share. The special referee was directed to inquire into the defendant's share in the partnership and to account for all dealings from a specified period. During the reference process, the defendant's counsel attempted to introduce certified copies of income-tax assessment orders obtained from the Income-tax Department, which the plaintiffs objected to, leading to a special report by the referee on the admissibility of these documents. The plaintiffs sought to exclude the certified copies of assessment orders on the grounds of confidentiality under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The section aimed to maintain the confidentiality of assessment proceedings to encourage assessees to provide accurate financial information without fear of disclosure to third parties. The court analyzed the scope of confidentiality regarding assessment orders, emphasizing the privilege of confidentiality that could be waived by an assessee. However, the court noted that using such confidential documents against a co-assessee in contentious proceedings could be detrimental and potentially unfair. The court referenced previous cases where certified copies of assessment orders were deemed inadmissible, highlighting the importance of maintaining confidentiality in such matters. The judgment delved into the legal framework surrounding the admissibility of certified copies of assessment orders, distinguishing between public documents and the right of access to such documents. While acknowledging that assessment orders could be considered public documents, the court emphasized that not all public documents were accessible to the public or specified individuals. The court concluded that the documents in question did not fall under the ambit of admissible certified copies under the Evidence Act. Consequently, the court rejected the admissibility of the assessment orders and directed the special referee to proceed with the reference excluding the disputed documents. The defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
|
