9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the restrictions imposed under sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act. In view of the judicial pronouncements on the subject and discussions made above, the trial court has fallen into error by terming the documents sought to be called for as privileged documents. The order passed by the trial court is totally wrong and is accordingly set aside. However, before summoning the documents in question the trial court should at first satisfy itself that the documents are required for the purpose of determining the issue raised in the suit. - - - - - Dated:- 5-7-2002 - Judge(s) : B. P. DAS. JUDGMENT B.P. DAS J.-This revision application is directed against the order dated May 4, 2002, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aska, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for certified copies of the aforesaid documents was rejected. The petitioner in the aforesaid application also prayed to call for certain other documents mentioned at serial Nos. 11 to 27 from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kabisuryanagar. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has by the impugned order rejected the prayer of the petitioner in view of the bar of section 123 of the Evidence Act holding that the court is not competent to call for the documents from the Income-tax Office in view of the restrictions contained in the Income-tax Act as well as sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act. So far as the documents sought to be summoned from the office of the Sub-Registrar are concerned, the trial court rejected the prayer of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnished the information asked for and his decision in this behalf shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court of law." From the above provision it is crystal clear that it only enables the Commissioner to give copies of certain documents provided the grant of such copies is in public interest. It does not apply where a party wants the documents for private purpose. It does not prohibit the income-tax authorities from producing the assessee's documents before the civil court when directed by the civil court to do so. It is profitable to mention herein that with the repeal of the 1922 Income-tax Act and omission of section 137 of the 1961 Income-tax Act, the fetters on the exercise of that jurisdiction were removed w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the record from the income-tax authorities. Those provisions, as already noticed, had only put the exercise of that jurisdiction under a cloud and those fetters were coterminous with the life of section 54 of the 1922 Act or section 137 of the 1961 Act." It was further held in paragraph 18 thus: "The finality which has been attached to the order of the Commissioner under section 138(1)(b) of the Act is applicable only in cases where application is made to the Commissioner by a party or any other person for receiving documents or information. It has nothing to do with the powers of the courts to summon the production of assessment records of an assessee, filed after April 1, 1964. The privilege as to secrecy which the assessee had ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, it is open to the Commissioner of Income-tax to claim privilege, in respect of any document or record so summoned by a court of law, under sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and even then it is for the court to decide whether or not to grant that privilege. Had the Legislature intended that no document from the assessment record of an assessee should be produced in a court on being summoned by it, without the approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, it would have said so in section 138 of the Act itself. The repeal of section 137 of the Act clearly discloses the legislative intent that it was felt by the Legislature that it was no more necessary to keep the records of assessment by the Income-tax Department relatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 124 of the Evidence Act. In view of the judicial pronouncements on the subject and discussions made above, the trial court has fallen into error by terming the documents sought to be called for as privileged documents. The order passed by the trial court is totally wrong and is accordingly set aside. However, before summoning the documents in question the trial court should at first satisfy itself that the documents are required for the purpose of determining the issue raised in the suit. So far as the order directing the petitioner to obtain the certified copies of the documents available in the Sub-Registrar's office is concerned, the same needs no interference. The civil revision is accordingly allowed in part. No costs. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
