9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (5) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is a bar against the disclosure of information and as such the court was not competent to issue orders calling for the records. The learned trial judge has rejected the application so far as the sales tax documents are concerned. That matter has become final since the plaintiff has not moved against that order. The learned trial judge has, however, allowed the prayer of the plaintiff in relation to the income-tax documents. The defendant has, therefore, come in revision before this court and asks that direction to be quashed as it is contrary to law and no jurisdiction vests in the learned trial judge to make the impugned order in view of the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Under section 54 of the Income-tax Act of 1922, the prohibition against disclosure of information was provided thus : " (1) All particulars contained in any statement made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced under the provisions of this Act, or in any evidence given, or affidavit or deposition made, in the course of any proceedings under this Act other than proceedings under this Chapter, or in any record of any assessment proceeding, or any proceeding relating to the recovery of a dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Government may, if in its opinion it is necessary so to do in the public interest, specify by notification in the Official Gazette in this behalf, any such information relating to any assessee in respect of any assessment made under this Act or the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as may, in the opinion of the Board and other income-tax authority, be necessary for the purpose of enabling the officer, authority or body to perform his or its functions under that law." (b) Where a person makes an application to the Commissioner in the prescribed form for any information relating to any assessee in respect of any assessment made under this Act or the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on or after the 1st day of April, 1960, the Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that it is in the public interest so to do, furnish or cause to be furnished the information asked for in respect of that assessment only and his decision in this behalf shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court of law. Sub-section (2) of this section virtually remained the same. The learned trial judge, in dealing with this aspect of the matter, has said : " In regard to the first application, it is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eral Clauses Act) would apply even to a case of repeal of one of the sections of the Act of 1961, namely, the omission of section 137 by the Finance Act of 1964. The Supreme Court has indicated in State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh that unless a contrary intention appears in the repealing statute, the consequences of section 6 of the General Clauses Act will apply, and that it is not necessary that the repealing of new Act should expressly keep alive old rights and liabilities. They say that the line of enquiry should be, not whether the new Act expressly keeps alive old rights and liabilities, but whether it manifests an intention to destroy them. Leaving aside for a moment the question whether there is anything in the Finance Act of 1964 disclosing a different intention, it is clear that under section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act, the inadmissibility of the evidence of Sri Marar will continue, notwithstanding the omission of section 137 of the Income-tax Act of 1961 by the Finance Act of 1964. The matter can be looked at, first, from the point of view of the Income-tax Officer himself, and secondly, from the point of view of the Commissioner of Income-tax. From the point of view o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the prohibition under the old law, namely, section 137 of the Act of 1961. Rather the correct view would be that, in addition to the old law, the notification under section 138(2) also contains a prohibition in respect of particular documents specified. As for section 138(1), that too cannot be taken as in any way destroying the prohibition contained in section 137 of the Income-tax Act of 1961. Section 138(1) deals only with what the Commissioner may do when a party applies to him, and does not touch the sphere covered by section 137(1) of the Act of 1961, which lays down the prohibition of evidence or documents being tendered in court by the officer. When the matter came up for examination in the case of Chinnammal v. Kumidhini the learned judge approved the earlier decision referred to above and was not prepared to agree with the view taken by Sadasivam J. in the case of Income-tax Officer v. P. Ramaratnam, to which I shall refer when I deal with Mr. Sinha's submissions. In the case of Daulat Ram v. Som Nath a learned single judge of the Delhi High Court approved the view taken in Ramakrishna Mudaliar v. Rajabu Fathima Bukari, and did not agree with the view of Sadasivam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive and subsisting with regard to assessments completed before that date such as the present one which was, as mentioned above, completed on the 14th February, 1957." What was stated by the Division Bench in regard to the repeal of the 1922 Act by the 1961 Act would equally apply to the omission of section 137 from the 1961 Act by section 32 of the Finance Act of 1964. On the basis of the principles indicated in the Punjab decision, O. P. Aggarwal, Income-tax Officer v. State, it would follow that there was no intention, manifested by the repealing provision or even the amendment brought to section 138 of the Act would not disclose a contrary intention. Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act is, therefore, attracted to the situation. Mr. Sinha, on the other hand, relies upon the decision of Sadasivam J. (already referred to) and a Bench decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Ve. V. Sivagami Achi v. Vr. Ve. Vr. Ramanathan Chettiar. It is true that the Division Bench in Ve. V. Sivagami Achi v. Vr. Ve. Vr. Ramanathan Chettiar disapproved the view taken by the two learned judges in the cases reported in Ramakrishna Mudaliar v. Rajabu Fathima Bukari and Chinnammal v. Kumi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
