9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (12) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and section 137 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the year 1957-68 (sic) no returns were filed by the plaintiff. The first return filed by the assessee related to the period April 1, 1958, to March 31, 1959. The documents, however, were produced in sealed covers for the perusal of the court. The learned subordinate judge upholding the privilege claimed by the Income-tax Officer has rejected the petition. On behalf of the petitioner, it is argued basing mainly on a Division Bench ruling of the Madras High Court in Sivagami Achi v. Ramanathan Chettiar, that the privilege is no longer available to the Income-tax Officer. There the court held : " The Finance Act, 1964 (Act 5 of 1964), by section 32 omitted secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hubir Saran v. O. P. Jain, Addl. Munsiff, Bulandshahr and the Delhi High Court in Daulat Ram v.Somnath. In Raghubir Saran v.O.P.Jain, Addl. Munsiff, Bulandshahr, the court held : "The statement in question having been made at the time when section 54 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was in force, the obligation on the part of the income-tax authorities to treat the same as confidential accrued the moment the statement was recorded and neither the repeal of the Income-tax Act, 1922, nor the enactment of the Income-tax Act, 1961, nor the omission of section 137 from the Act of 1961 having obliterated the obligation imposed by section 54, the learned Munsiff was not right in insisting upon the production of the documents in question. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not ...... (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed. " The question, therefore, is whether there is anything in the repealing Act or in the subsequent enactments indicating any intention to destroy the rights, privileges or obligations created by section 54 which would otherwise be preserved by section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act after the repeal of section 54. The old Act was repealed by the new Act. By sub-section (1) of section 297 of the new Act, the old Act was repealed but there were various saving clauses of which clauses (a) and (c) are : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove it is clear that the legislature had no intention to destroy the rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities accrued or incurred under section 54 of the old Act, by enacting section 137 of the new Act. Section 138 also is not incompatible or inconsistent with the effect of section 137 being continued notwithstanding its omission. To me it appears that the above decision lays down the correct law in respect of the matter. The general rule is that the provisions of the repealed Act will continue to be in force in respect of the right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred already, unless a contrary intention can be gathered from the new enactment. As already seen, so far as the present matter is concerned, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
