9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (3) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was dissolved on 17/18th July, 1955, and accounts were settled. Amongst other issues, a specific issue was struck as to whether firm Arjundas Laxmandas was dissolved on 17/18th July, 1955, and that the firm's accounts up to 17th July, 1955, were also finally settled. In support of their plea of an earlier dissolution of the firm, the defendants produced certified copies of two applications alleged to have been made by the plaintiff Ramchandra on behalf of the partnership firm before the Sales Tax Officer, Jodhpur City. A prayer was also made for summoning an official of the Sales Tax Department to produce the original applications. The plaintiff objected to the production of the certified copies and to the summoning of an official of the Sales Tax Department to produce the original applications and the Civil Judge vide his order dated 17th October, 1959, overruled the plaintiff's objections and held that the documents are admissible in evidence. In the proceedings of the same date, he further issued a direction to the Sales Tax Officer to send the original applications in a sealed cover and I am informed that the Sales Tax Officer has duly sent the original applications in a seale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... XIX of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Sales Tax Act). Section 25(1) reads as follows: "Returns, etc. to be confidential.-(1) All particulars contained in any statement made, returns furnished or accounts or documents produced under the provisions of the Act or of the rules made thereunder, or in any evidence given or affidavit or deposition made, in the course of any proceedings under this Act, or the rules made thereunder, or in any record of any proceedings relating to the recovery of a demand, prepared for the purpose of the Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be treated as confidential." It directs that certain documents specified in the sub-section shall be treated as confidential. Sub-section (2) specifies six exceptional cases where the disclosure of the particulars contained in documents referred to in sub-section (1) can be made. The argument developed in this connection is that the legislature having directed that the documents mentioned in sub-section (1) should be treated as confidential and having further specified cases where disclosure can be permitted in exceptional circumstances, it must be deemed to have impliedly prohibited the Courts from admitting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticulars by the Officials of the Income-tax Department. There is no express provision that they are rendered irrelevant or inadmissible nor is there any reference to the Evidence Act. On a proper construction of the relevant provisions, it is indeed difficult to accept that the legislature while enacting provisions under the Income-tax Act should be deemed to have modified or amended the provisions of the Evidence Act without making any express or implied reference. It follows that a view propounded that the documents containing the particulars referred to in the subsection are not admissible is not supported on a plain reading of the relevant provisions. It will be shown a little later that a further support for the above conclusion is to be found in the later part of section 54(1). The second thing denoted is contained in the later part of section 54(1). It is directed against compelled production and prohibits courts from requiring any public servant to produce the documents specified in the earlier part. In connection with this part, an expression, "notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act No.1 of 1872" has been introduced. The omission of any similar ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings and the reason for having a provision of this kind in the Income-tax Act is that assessees may not be reluctant to disclose the details of their business, and it is quite possible that they may not disclose their affairs without any kind of reserve unless they had an assurance that the information contained in these returns, accounts, statements and so forth furnished by them would not be divulged to any one. This is really to encourage the assessee to make a full and true disclosure of all relevant facts within his knowledge knowing that any statement made by him will not subsequently be used against him, and it appears to me that it was for this express purpose that section 54 was worded in the way that it has been done so as to give the assurance which was thought necessary for the income-tax purposes." It can easily be assumed that the reasons stated with reference to the disclosure of the total income of assessees cannot be available in any substantial or appreciable degree in connection with the disclosure of the relevant business for the purpose of assessment of the sales tax and this may have influenced the Legislature to incorporate in the Sales Tax Act only the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Narayandas A.I.R. 1932 Bom. 291., where it was held that in view of the strong language of section 54(1), Income-tax Act, and the penalty imposed by section 54(2), neither the assessee nor any one else is entitled to obtain certified copies of the assessment returns under section 76 of the Evidence Act and it is only certified copies so obtained which are made admissible under section 76. It also thus gives the same two reasons relied upon in the Rangoon case(1). The third case relied upon is a single judge decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in Promatha Nath Paramanick v. Nirode Chandra Ghose[1939] 7 I.T.R. 570; A.I.R. 1940 Cal. 187., where Panckridge, J., made the following observations: "It may be that in the case of a sole assessee, there is no objection to his using the copy so obtained as evidence in legal proceedings, if there are no other objections to its admissibility. It may reasonably be said that the provision that an assessment order shall be treated as confidential is a privilege which an assessee may waive if he thinks fit to do so. However, it would be a startling thing if a joint assessee were to be permitted to use the copy of such an order to the detri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of section 54 and has very little to do with the consideration of the earlier part of section 54(1). This ground therefore, cannot be of much help in interpreting section 25 of the Sales Tax Act. It is, however, necessary to point out that the view taken in these cases has been dissented from in several cases. The Madras Full Bench decision already referred to above in connection with ground no. I refers to the Rangoon and the Bombay cases and Leach, C.J., records the following conclusion: "I have said sufficient to indicate that in my opinion there is nothing in section 54 which prohibits a party from putting in evidence a certified copy of an income-tax return if that return is a public document and that the learned Judges misunderstood the effect of that section." In Emperor v. Osman Chotani and Others[1942] 10 I.T.R. 429; A.I.R. 1942 Bom. 289., Beaumont, C.J., relying upon the Full Bench Madras decision held that "there is nothing in section 54, Income-tax Act, to justify the extreme view taken by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate that all the documents referred to in that section are made inadmissible in evidence............ I think the Legislature only mean that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bserved that in the English case, a prohibition against production in Court was implied from the fact that the disclosure was made a criminal offence. I do not see why a similar prohibition should not be implied against the powers of the police from taking possession of the documents mentioned in sub-section (1). Mr. Manakmal cannot derive any support from the majority judgment. The minority judgment, in my opinion, turns upon the consideration of the prohibition against Courts contained in the later part of section 54(1) and section 54(2) creating disclosure a crime and therefore, does not lend any further support to the view contended for. A review of the case law under the income-tax law reveals that there is no complete unanimity in the judicial opinion and the decisions of courts are conflicting. The preponderance of judicial opinion, can, however, be safely predicated for the view favouring the admissibility of certified copies at least in some cases, exceptions as mentioned in subsection (3) apart. The cases which have taken a contrary view do not merely rely upon the language of the earlier part of section 54, but emphasize the prohibition against courts against compell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs carrying on business in the name and style of Messrs Arjundas Laxmandas and the applications whose certified copies are produced were submitted on behalf of the partnership firm in connection with the sales tax assessments. The non-petitioners as partners could get certified copies. There is nothing to show that under the practice prevailing in the Sales Tax Department, the partners have no right to inspect the records or to obtain the copies. On these considerations also, there cannot be any valid objection to the admissibility of these documents. In this connection, it was further suggested by Shri Roshanlal that on a view that the documents are admissible, a party acquires a right to compel the production of original documents in connection with the proof of the certified copies validly produced in spite of the later part of section 54(1). I am, however, not prepared to go to that extent. In Additional Income-tax Officer, Anantapur v. Golla Narayanamma and Others[1958] 34 I.T.R. 212., Subba Rao, C. J., had occasion to consider this question and the learned Chief justice observed that the prohibition against the Courts is mandatory. Dealing with the argument that in case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
