9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of provisions under the Income Tax Act regarding disclosure of information for legal proceedings. Analysis: The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a money decree against the defendant based on a promissory note for a loan of Rs. 4,000. The defendant contested, claiming to have borrowed only Rs. 2,000 and requested the profit and loss account attached to the plaintiff's income tax return to support his plea. The Income-tax Department provided the document to the court, but the plaintiff objected to its admission as evidence. The court rejected the defendant's request, leading to a revision application. The defendant argued that post the repeal of s. 137 in 1964, under the Income Tax Act of 1961, he should be allowed to submit the document in question as evidence. The plaintiff, however, relied on s. 138 of the 1961 Act, which prohibits disclosure of information relating to an assessee except in public interest. The court reviewed the relevant provisions of the 1922 and 1961 Acts concerning disclosure of information by public servants and the Commissioner of Income-tax. The court noted the changes in the law, emphasizing that the repeal of s. 137 in 1964 expanded the scope of s. 138, requiring the Commissioner to determine if disclosing information is in the public interest. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that individuals could not seek tax papers of others directly from the court, stating that the discretion of the Commissioner and the courts must be exercised differently. The court held that the repeal of s. 137 should be given effect, allowing the court to make orders according to the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Act. The judge referred to various cases, including Trilok Chand Jain v. D. R. P. Lall and Pentakota Surya Appa Rao v. Pentakota Seethayamma, to support the decision. The court disagreed with conflicting opinions from different High Courts and set aside the lower court's order, allowing the defendant's prayer to admit the document as evidence. The revision application was allowed without costs.
|
