9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to issue summons to witnesses. 2. Applicability of Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the confidentiality of documents. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to Issue Summons to Witnesses: The primary contention raised was whether the Rent Controller had the jurisdiction to issue a summons to a witness or to produce documents. The petitioner argued that the Rent Controller is not a "court" but a Tribunal created under a subordinate legislation, and thus, his powers are governed strictly by the legislation creating that Tribunal. The Rent Control Order did not explicitly provide the Rent Controller with the power to summon witnesses or documents. It was pointed out that other enactments creating tribunals explicitly confer such powers, but no such provisions exist in the Rent Control Order. The petitioner contended that the power to summon witnesses could not be implied in the absence of specific provisions. The court, however, held that while the Rent Controller is not a "court" under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the power to summon witnesses could be implied as essential for the effective execution of the Rent Controller's duties. The court referred to the principle that if a statute confers a jurisdiction, it also grants the power to do all acts necessary to its execution. The court concluded that the power to summon witnesses was essential for the Rent Controller to "hear the parties" and thus could be implied. 2. Applicability of Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The second issue was whether Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provided complete protection against the disclosure of information submitted by the petitioner in his income tax returns. The petitioner argued that the returns and documents filed before the Income Tax Officer (ITO) were confidential and could not be disclosed unless permitted by the Income Tax Act. The court examined Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended by Act No. 5 of 1964, and noted that the complete protection previously available under Section 137 had been deleted. The current Section 138 provided limited protection and allowed the Board or any specified income tax authority to furnish information if it was necessary for the performance of functions under any law. The court found that Section 138 did not afford the petitioner the protection claimed and did not prohibit the Rent Controller from summoning the ITO to produce documents. Conclusion: The court held that the Rent Controller had the implied jurisdiction to issue summons to witnesses, including the ITO, for the production of documents. It also held that Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, did not provide the petitioner with the claimed protection against the disclosure of information. Consequently, the petitioner's writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with costs. The stay granted earlier was vacated.
|
