1972 (1) TMI 18 - HC - Income Tax

An application was filed praying for issue of summons on the Income-tax Officer requiring him to produce certain documents as mentioned in the application. This application has been rejected by the learned subordinate judge on the ground that in view of certain provisions of the Income-tax Act he could not direct the production of those documents held that After s. 137 is repealed there is no bar in the way of a civil court in directing the production of documents which were filed before an Income-tax Officer

Summary

Issues: Suit under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, rejection of application for summons on Income-tax Officer, interpretation of Income-tax Act provisions regarding disclosure of information and production of documents, jurisdiction of the court.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a suit under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act against the defendant, alleging the defendant's monthly income to be over Rs. 25,000, which was disputed by the defendant claiming it did not exceed Rs. 300. An application for summons on the Income-tax Officer was rejected by the subordinate judge citing provisions of the Income-tax Act. The court examined the provisions of the Income-tax Act, specifically section 137, and noted that disclosure of information was prohibited but with exceptions, including for prosecution under the Indian Penal Code. The court highlighted the amendments made to the Act, emphasizing that after the repeal of section 137, there was no impediment for the court to order the production of documents filed post-repeal before income-tax authorities. The court disagreed with the argument that the amended section 138 implied a prohibition on the court calling for document production, clarifying that the provision did not restrict the court's jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Code.

The court addressed the defendant's reliance on a specific provision of the Income-tax Act, section 138(1)(b), stating that it did not contain any explicit or implicit prohibition on the court ordering document production. The court emphasized that the commissioner granting copies of documents for public interest did not affect the court's power to order document production for private interest under the Civil Procedure Code. The court also rejected the interpretation that section 138(2) would prevent relevant document acquisition even for prosecution under the Indian Penal Code, stating that such an outcome could not be the legislative intent. The court distinguished a previous case cited by the lower court, emphasizing that the circumstances in the present case, involving documents filed post-repeal of section 137, were different.

In conclusion, the court allowed the civil revision application, setting aside the lower court's order and directing it to consider the application for document production on its merits. The parties were granted the opportunity to present their submissions, and no costs were awarded for the civil revision application.