9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to compel attendance before him of two persons who are the two respondents in the two appeals before us. It appears that by a notice dated June 19, 1968, purported to be a summons to witness under section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Sri D. K. Guha, Assistant Director of Inspection, required Sri Gopal Das Gupta who is respondent in Appeal No. 129 of 1971 and Sri Ranendra Chandra Roy who is respondent in Appeal No. 292 of 1970, informing each of them that his attendance was required " in connection with a proceeding under the Income-tax Act in the case of Aruna Estate Limited " to give evidence either personally or through an authorised representative, the books of account and other documents specified and not to depart until permitted to do so, in the respective letters dated June 19, 1968. It was also mentioned that " If you intentionally omit to so attend to give evidence, a fine up to Rs. 500 may be imposed upon you under section 131(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ". Each of these persons, i.e., Sri Gopal Das Gupta and Sri Ranendra Chandra Roy, by separate letters, raised various objections and in the course of that correspond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner shall, for the purposes of this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit in respect of the following matters, viz. : (a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a banking company and examining him on oath; (c) compelling the production of books of account and other documents; and (d) issuing commissions. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, where a person to whom a summons is issued either to attend to give evidence or produce books of account or other documents at a certain place and time, intentionally omits to attend or produce the books of account or documents at the place or time, the income-tax authority may impose upon him such fine not exceeding five hundred rupees as it thinks fit, and the fine so levied may be recovered in the manner provided in Chapter XVII-D. (3) Subject to any rules made in this behalf, any authority referred to in sub-section (1) may impound and retain in its custody for such period as it thinks fit any books of accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alf that the words of section 135 are absolutely plain and free from any ambiguity. To justify reference to and reliance on the Objects and Reasons above mentioned, reliance was placed on two decisions of the Supreme Court, one in the case of CIT v. Sodra Debi [1957] 32 ITR 615 and the other in the case of Prashar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas [1963] 49 ITR 1 (SC) at p. 20. Before the learned trial judge on behalf of the Department, reliance was placed mainly on the language in section 135 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the proposition that it confers on the Director and other authorities mentioned therein all the powers of an Income-tax Officer to make any enquiry under the Act and such enquiry must necessarily involve summoning of witnesses and production of material books or documents. The learned trial judge, K. L. Roy J., overruled the contentions advanced on behalf of the Department by holding that the question raised was not entirely one of construction of the relevant section of the Act. He held that the authority to issue the impugned notice is sought to be derived from section 131 which section specifically empowers the four authorities mentioned therein to exercise the po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, did not award any costs. From the two judgments in these two matters, two appeals have been preferred by the Union of India and the questions raised in both these appeals are the same questions regarding the interpretation of sections 131 and 135 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In Appeal No. 129 of 1971, Mr. Balai Lal Pal appeared on behalf of the appellants. In appeal No. 292 of 1970, Mr. Suhas Sen appeared before us for the appellant. III both the appeals Mr. A. K. Roy Chowdhury appeared on behalf of the respondents. Arguments advanced in both the appeals have been the same and we shall deal with these judgment in this statute for disposing of both the appeals. Mr. Pal, for the appellant, in Appeal No. 129 of 1971, adhered to the same contentions that were raised for the Department before the learned trial judge and only in elaboration Mr. Pal drew our attention to the definition of Director of Inspection as it appears in section 2, sub-section (21), to show that the definition includes the Additional Director of Inspection, Deputy Director of Inspection, and also Assistant Director of Inspection. The learned counsel also drew our attention to section 116 which mentions the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his argument, argued that for smooth working of the statute by adaptation of its particular provisions to fit with other provisions in the statute, it is proper and necessary for the court to adapt the different provisions with each other by modifications in the language appearing to the extent of giving meanings thereto mutatis mutandis. For that proposition, Mr. Pal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Third ITO v. M. Damodar Bhat [1969] 71 ITR 806 and also the judgment in the case of Jain Brothers v. Union of India [1970] 77 ITR 107. In furtherance of this contention, Mr. Pal also referred to section 297 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 680. Reference was also made by the learned counsel to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Singh Engineering Works P. Ltd. [1970] 78 ITR 90. We do not feel the necessity of going into the detailed facts of the cases cited by the learned counsel except that we may at once point out that the decision of the Supreme Court, turning on section 297(g) of the Income-tax Act, was in a case in which the provision that was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers as are vested in the court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit in respect of matters delineated in the section ". Giving our full consideration to the particularity of the language, it appears to us that Parliament has made a distinction between the powers that have been conferred directly by this statute, that is, the Income-tax Act, 1961, mentioned in section 135 and the powers which have been made available by drawing from the sources in another statute, i.e., " the powers as are vested in the court under the Code of Civil Procedure ", and that is why the insertion of " Inspecting Assistant Commissioner " in section 131 by amendment in 1965 was felt necessary although that category of officer has been mentioned in section 135. There is great force in the contention on behalf of the respondents before us that if section 135 has conferred by these general words also the specific powers mentioned in section 131, then the amendment of section 131 in 1965 would have been unnecessary and that is in our view, quite enough reason for rejecting the contention raised on behalf of the Department. We also accept the view of the learned trial judge that by weighin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... means the powers which the Income-tax Act, 1961, directly confers and does not include the powers that section 131 enables them to avail of as drawn from the Civil Procedure Code which has vested the courts with the powers while dealing with suits. If, however, as Mr. Pal has tended to suggest, a particular officer is performing any function being assigned by the Board under section 120 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, then by dint of that assignment, all the powers for discharge of these functions will be available to that particular officer. Mr. Pal tended to make the point that the petitioners who are the respondents before us had not challenged the impugned notice or summons on the ground that there was no such assignment under section 120. In doing so, in our view, Mr. Pal was really not following the logic of events. During the controversy by correspondence, the petitioners who are the respondents before us had sought for information as to the legal authority and in answer they were only told about the legal proceeding by pointing to section 131 of the Income-tax Act. It was never contended by the officer or Department that during that correspondence or even in their affidavit in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
