9911796707
TMI Blog1940 (4) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Mythili Ammal v. Janaki Ammal [1939] 7 ITR 657(Mad.) . In our opinion the evidential value of these Income-tax documents is such that if they are admitted, the correctness of the lower Court's conclusion is clear. If they are to be rejected, we shall have to decide hereafter whether the remaining evidence is sufficient to establish the pre-existence of this note for ₹ 24,400, which, if established, seems to us, in view of the defendant's denials and suppressions, to warrant the decree which has been given. The legal difficulty may be briefly stated. Exs. E and H are both certified copies. If the original is a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act, then the certified copies are good secondary evidence of that original under Section 65 (e). If these statements are not public documents, we are unable to see how the certified copies can be admitted into evidence under any other clause of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Section 74 defines public documents as documents forming the acts or records of the acts (1) of the sovereign authority (2) of official bodies and tribunals and (3) of public officers, legislative, judicial and execut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rns being made confidential by Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, certified copies of such a return could not lawfully be given and if given could not be used in evidence. In Devidutt v. Shriram Narayandoss 56 Bom 324 a Bench of the Bombay High Court held that certified copies of an Income-tax return could not be given in evidence, because the return is not a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act and that the prohibition in Section 54 of the Indian Income-tax Act was sufficient to warrant the view that a certified copy could not be lawfully obtained and would not be admissible in evidence if obtained. It seems to us that these decisions raise a question of far-reaching importance. With all respect to the learned Judges who have held otherwise, we do not consider that prohibition amongst the disclosure of the contents of an Income-tax return can save any bearing on the admissibility of the contents of that return filed at the instance of the person who made it. If the Income-tax return is a part of the record of the act of the Income tax Officer making the assessment, a certified copy of the document can lawfully be given, subject to the prohibition aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -section (1) of Section 54 of the Indian Income-tax Act states that all particulars contained in a statement made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced under the provisions of the Act or in evidence given in the Court of proceedings under the Act other than proceedings under Chapter VIII (which relates to offences and penalties) or in a record of an assessment proceeding, or a proceeding relating to the recovery of a demand shall be treated as confidential, and, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no Court shall be entitled to require a public servant to produce a document referred to in the section or to give evidence thereon. Sub-section (2) provides for the punishment of a public servant who unlawfully discloses particulars of an income-tax matter. Sub-section (3) sets out the occasions on which disclosure can lawfully be made. It is not necessary to set them out as the provisions of sub-section (3) have no application here and have no bearing on the reported decisions which have relation to the application of Section 54. While Section 54 prohibits the disclosure, except on specified occasions, of matters connected with an assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Private documents must be proved by primary evidence, except in such cases where secondary evidence is permitted under the provisions of Section 65, Cl. (e) of that section allows secondary evidence to be given when the original is a public document within the meaning of Section 74. If an Income tax return or a statement filed in support of it is a public document within the meaning of Section 74, certified copies will be admissible under Section 65(e). The answer to the question whether a document of this nature is a public document depends on whether it is a document forming an act or the record of an act or acts of an Income-tax Officer. Before stating opinion on the question I will first refer to certain of the cases which have been quoted in argument. In Anwar Ali v. Tafozal Ahmad [1924] 2 Rang 391 a single Judge of the Rangoon High Court held that Income-tax return being made confidential by reason of Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, and the disclosure of their contents being a punishable offence certified copies cannot be admitted in evidence. The Court did not consider the effect of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act and decided against the admissibility of the cer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer is admissible in evidence and there is nothing in Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, or any of the provisions of the evidence Act which precludes its admissibility. The statement was regarded as being a public document because it was a statement recorded by the Income-tax Officer and therefore a document forming a record of his act. Though they did not accept the Bombay interpretation of Section 76 of the Evidence Act the learned Judges concurred in the opinion expressed by the Bombay High Court in Devidutt Ramniranjandoss v. Shriram Narayndas 56 Bom 324 that an Income-tax return is not a public document. They did not say so, but it is to be gathered from their judgment that they did not regard an Income-tax return as a public document because it is prepared by the assessee. The question whether an Income-tax return is a public document was discussed at some length by the Bench of this Court (Burn and Stodart, JJ.) in Mythili Ammal s case (supra) and the conclusion arrived at was that it is not a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Judges considered that it was impossible to infer from the wording of the Act that a return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment is a public document within the meaning of Section 74 and the decision in Venkataramana v. Varahalu [1939] 7 ITR 560 ; 50 LW 681 that a statement recorded by an Income-tax Officer falls in the same category has not been questioned. Now, if a statement recorded by an Income-tax Officer in the course of his examination of the assessee is a public document it is difficult to see why a statement handed in by the assessee disclosing the basis of the return called for should not be similarly regarded. Surely the test cannot be whether the profits and loss statement is actually drawn up by the Income-tax Officer. As the learned Judges who have made this reference have pointed out, a plaint or a written statement has always been regarded by this Court as forming part of the record of a case and a public document of which an interested party may obtain a certified copy. If the argument, that an Income-tax return is not a public document but that the order passed thereon is, were carried to its logical conclusion, it would mean that no part of the record of a civil suit could be regarded as constituting a public document except evidence recorded by the Court or summonses or notices o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
