The question involved is the admissibility of the evidence of one Sri Marar relating to the initials, which he is alleged to have affixed on 17th August, 1957 in some account books (Exhibits D-24 and D-25), which he perused in his capacity as Income-tax Officer, Second Circle, Madras. The question arises because of the provisions of section 54 of the Income-tax Act of 1922 and section 137 of the Income-tax Act of 1961. Section 137 of the Income-tax Act (XLIII of 1961) was omitted from the statute by section 32 of the Finance Act of 1964. Another question which is involved is whether the prohibition, which existed against the Income-tax Officer giving evidence under the provisions of section 54 of the Income-tax Act of 1922 and section 137 of the Income-tax Act of 1961, still continues, having regard to the provisions of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

The facts necessary for the disposal of the questions are these. Mrs. Buhari, the first defendant in the suit, C.S. No. 43 of 196?, produced her account books, Exhibits D-24 and D-25, at a late stage, and applied for permission to condone the delay One of the questions for the Court was whether any of the account