1965 (10) TMI 3 - HC - Income Tax

Summons - statement - person made a statement before the Income tax officer that he was willing to disclose it - court can not issue summons to the Income tax officer for the statement - held that the statement could not be summoned

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 137(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Application of section 137(5) in relation to court orders.
3. Comparison with precedents - Income-tax Officer, Central Circle I, Madras v. Ramaratnam and Ramakrishna Mudaliar v. Rajabu Fathima Bukari.
4. Relevance of section 137(3)(xxi) in the present case.
5. Impact of the Finance Act, 1964, on the application of section 137.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Madras dealt with the interpretation of section 137(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in a case where the defendants, who were the petitioners, disputed the execution of a promissory note by their father and the consideration behind it. The court below had dismissed their application based on section 137(1) of the Act. The petitioners argued that section 137(5) should apply as one of the statements made to the Income-tax Officer was by the defendant's father himself. However, the court held that sub-section (5) does not lift the prohibition imposed by sub-section (1) on the court or any public servant. It clarified that the liberty given to the maker of the statement under sub-section (5) does not extend to the court or public servant.

The judgment referenced the case of Income-tax Officer, Central Circle I, Madras v. Ramaratnam, where it was held that if the assessee waived the privilege, the prohibition under section 137 would not operate. However, the court reiterated that sub-section (1) is not subject to sub-section (5), and the prohibition against the court or public servant is absolute. Another case, Ramakrishna Mudaliar v. Rajabu Fathima Bukari, was cited to support the view that the evidence of the Income-tax Officer is inadmissible under section 137(5), emphasizing that the prohibition against the officer himself remains intact.

The petitioners also argued for the application of section 137(3)(xxi), but the court found it inapplicable as the statements in question did not fall within the scope of that provision. Lastly, the petitioners contended that since section 137 was removed by the Finance Act, 1964, their application should be allowed. However, the court emphasized that it was bound by the law in force at the time of the application's disposal and dismissed the petition without costs.