CHANDURKAR C.J.

On notice of motion, this appeal comes up for admission today. Mr. B. Shanthakumar appears for the respondent.Heard both sides. Appeal admitted. This appeal filed by the Revenue is to challenge the correctness of certain statement of law made by the learned single judge in his order under appeal. The writ petition itself was filed by the respondent for a direction that the original will dated January 1, 1977, impounded by him in pursuance of an order dated May 15, 1985, should be returned forthwith to the respondent herein. The learned judge undoubtedly directed return of the will on the respondent furnishing an undertaking that he will produce the original will as and when he is called upon to do so and getting a Xerox copy of the will on record. But he has made certain observations, which appears to us to be unnecessary, with regard to the jurisdiction ofthe Income-tax Officer to go into the question of the truth or genuineness of the will. These observations are as follows :

"In so far as the Income-tax Department, has no jurisdiction to decide the truth or genuineness of the will, I see no justification for the retention of the will." *

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has made it clear to us that the appeal is filed only because the Revenue is aggrieved by the observation that the Income-tax Department has no jurisdiction to decide the truth or genuineness of the will. The other part of the order is not challenged. Mr. Shanthakumar on behalf of the assessee has taken the stand that the observations of which grievance has been made became necessary because of the counter-affidavit filed by the successor-Income-tax Officer in which in connection with the assessment order made by the earlier Income-tax Officer he had stated that he has taken the view that the said will is not a genuine document and that it has been fabricated only to convert the individual properties of the respondent herein into joint family properties It is not in dispute that no such finding has been recorded by the earlier Income-tax Officer in his assessment order. However, the order of the learned judge has the effect of laying down a legal proposition with regard to the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Department and the observations made by the learned judge have to be read independent of the averments made in the affidavit, though it may be that those observations became necessary because of the stand taken in the counter-affidavit.However, the fact remains that the effect of the observations which the learned judge has made is that the Income-tax Department is held to have had no jurisdiction at all to decide the genuineness of the will. We are unable to find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the learned judge. The authorities functioning under the Income-tax Act are authorities exercising statutory and investigative jurisdiction. As pointed out by the Division Bench of this court in V. Datchinamurthy v .Asst. Director of Inspection (Intelligence), I. T. Dept. 1984 (149) ITR 341, 1982 (27) CTR 106, 1983 (12) TAXMAN 185, 1982 (27) CTR(Mad) 106, the Income-tax Officer is, within the limits assigned to him tinder the Act a Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction for the purpose of assessment to income-tax and that any proceedings or adjudication on an issue in a civil litigation between the taxpayer and an adversary of his, is not binding ill any proceedings for assessment. The Division Bench has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Chhatrasinhji Kesarisinhji Thakore v.CIT 1966 AIR(SC) 928, 1966 (59) ITR 562, 1966 (2) SCR 440 (SC) in which the Supreme Court has examined the powers and jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer in relation to the assessment as contrasted with other statutory adjudications. In the context of the determination of the question whether a receipt of money was income or was taxable, the Supreme Court observed at page 567 as follows

"There is nothing in the Income-tax A