9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (11) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t subsequently it was levied - assessee summoned the assessment records to prove his claim - hether the department can refuse to produce the same on the ground of privilege X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drew up penalty proceedings for these years. After hearing the assessee the Income-tax Officer imposed penalties upon it for the aforesaid assessment years. The assessee went up in appeal but failed. It then filed an appeal before the Tribunal. On 6th September, 1971, the assessee filed an application praying that certain records of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Varanasi and Allahabad, and the Income-tax Officer, C and B Wards, Allahabad, be summoned under section 255(6) read with section 181 of the Income-tax Act in the interest of justice and in order to enable the assessee to establish its grounds of appeal. The principal grievance of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on were communications made in official confidence and their disclosure will injure public interest because it will materially affect freedom and candour of expression of opinion by the officers of the department and will impair the proper functioning of the public services. The Tribunal held that the proceedings for assessment or for imposition of penalty are quasi-judicial in nature. Section 119 of the Income tax Act, 1961, prohibits the Board from issuing any instructions or directions so as to interfere with the discretion of the assessing officer in regard to the decision of an individual case. The Income-tax Officer as well as the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who bad jurisdiction to impose penalty exercised quasi-judicial functi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty and the higher authorities in regard to assessment or penalty proceedings could not be held to be communications made in official confidence because in law these authorities were not entitled to exchange opinions or give advice in regard to judicial proceedings. In our opinion, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioners under section 124 of the Evidence Act. We are also satisfied that the petitioners made their claim of privilege more to bolster up their defence to the appeal filed by the respondent-assessee rather than in public interest. The documents sought to be summoned were in relation to the settlement reached between the parties. They consisted of draft assessment orders, etc. Disclosure of these d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
