9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (3) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treated "confidential" but later, the C.T.O. Guntur, having obtained permission from the Commissioner, produced the "record" before the court. In subsequent proceedings, while the C.T.O., Guntur, was being examined as a witness, it was stated (by a memo) by the plaintiff that the record produced cannot be used and is "prohibited" to be used except when "Government is a party" which is not the case and the court "shall not encourage the violation" of rule 61 of the Rules. The Principal Subordinate Judge at Narasaraopet thereupon on 19th February, 1979, in the order under revision held that clause (iv) of rule 61, on the facts of the case, is not attracted in the instant case, and evidence with reference to the "record " and the assessment or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th similar "prohibitions" and powers in the income-tax department. Section 138 as on today came into existence from 1st April, 1964, for section 137 by the Amendment Act was omitted. The scope and ambit of the omission of section 137 in Act 43 of 1961 came to be considered by a Division Bench of this Court in a case reported in Pentakota Surya Appa Rao v. Pentakota Seethayamma[1976] 103 I.T.R. 222 at 236, 238, 244. and, in my view, the ratio decidendi helps in understanding the scope of rule 61. This Court in Pentakota Surya Appa Rao v. Pentakota Seethayamma[1976] 103 I.T.R. 222 at 236, 238, 244. held: "It is worthy of note that section 54 of the 1922 Act and section 137 of the 1961 Act laid the embargo on courts notwithstanding anythin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing and collecting tax. One of us (Sambasiva Rao, Actg. C.J.) held in Vijaya Kumar Machinery Electrical Stores v. Alaparthi Lakshmikanthamma[1969] 74 I.T.R. 224. that the income-tax returns are public documents. Since they are originals themselves of public documents, they require no further proof." The extracts indicate that the Evidence Act [1 of 1872] is eclipsed by the operation of the non obstante clause; otherwise the powers of the court under the Evidence Act, 1872, are unfettered. When a witness is summoned before a court, the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act govern the examination of the witness. Following the decision or to be precise, if the principle in the decision is applied, rule 61 does not purport to limit the power ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
