1973 (3) TMI 24 - HC - Income Tax

This is a revision application filed by the original plaintiff against an order passed by the Civil judge, in Civil Suit, rejecting his application, objecting to issuance of summons to the income-tax and estate duty authorities at the instance of the defendant - Whether civil court is empowered to order production of Income-tax and Estate duty orders - Appeal dismissed

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the civil court to issue summons for income-tax and estate duty documents.
2. Applicability of Section 54 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and Section 137 and Section 138 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Interpretation of Section 80 of the Estate Duty Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to Issue Summons for Income-tax and Estate Duty Documents:
The plaintiff objected to the issuance of summons to the income-tax and estate duty authorities, claiming privilege over the documents. The trial court held that documents filed and statements made up to April 1, 1964, could not be summoned, but documents after that date could be looked into if produced voluntarily by the Income-tax Officer. The court would not compel production if the officer claimed privilege. The plaintiff contended that the civil court had no jurisdiction to call for such documents, arguing that it would substitute the court's discretion for that of the Commissioner. However, the court found that the powers of the civil court to issue summons are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure and are independent of the Income-tax Act, thus upholding the trial court's order.

2. Applicability of Section 54 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and Section 137 and Section 138 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The plaintiff argued that Section 54 of the 1922 Act and Section 137 of the 1961 Act imposed an absolute prohibition on the disclosure of information by public servants, and this prohibition continued under Section 138. However, the court noted that Section 137 had been deleted and Section 138 re-enacted in a different form, indicating a legislative intent to relax strict secrecy. The court held that Section 138 provides a procedure for obtaining information but does not restrict the court's power to summon documents. The Mysore High Court and other High Courts have taken similar views, reinforcing that the civil court's authority to issue summons is not curtailed by the Income-tax Act.

3. Interpretation of Section 80 of the Estate Duty Act:
The plaintiff claimed privilege over the estate duty documents under Section 80 of the Estate Duty Act, which applies Section 54 of the Income-tax Act to documents produced in estate duty proceedings. The court rejected this claim, distinguishing between documents and orders. It held that an order passed by the Estate Duty Officer is not a document produced in the course of proceedings but a quasi-judicial decision. The Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in Uppala Lakshmidevi v. V. S. Marty supported this view, stating that assessment orders are not protected under Section 80 of the Estate Duty Act. Therefore, the civil judge's order to issue summons for estate duty orders was upheld.

Conclusion:
The revision application was dismissed, affirming the civil court's jurisdiction to issue summons for income-tax documents post-April 1, 1964, and estate duty orders. The court clarified that the legislative changes in the Income-tax Act do not maintain the absolute prohibition on disclosure, and the civil court's powers under the Code of Civil Procedure remain intact. The interpretation of Section 80 of the Estate Duty Act excludes orders from the privilege, allowing their production in court.

← Previous Next →