Ramachandra Iyer, J.-

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ, prohibiting the 1st respondent from granting to the 2nd respondent certified copies of income-tax assessment orders or other records relating to the income-tax assessment of one G. V. Rangasami Naidu.

G. V. Rangasami Naidu was an income-tax assessee who was running a bus service in Dowlatabad, Krishnagiri, Salem District. He died intestate on 21st October, 1956, leaving behind him his heirs, the first petitioner, his widow, a minor daughter, and the 2nd respondent, his mother. The widow entered into possession of the estate. She put herself forward as the proprietrix of the bus service, and she submitted returns to the income-tax authorities for the assessment years, 1956-57 and 1957-58. She was assessed to tax on the basis of the returns: the taxes have also been paid.

The 2nd respondent filed O.S. No. 3 of 1957 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Salem against the petitioner and her daughter, claiming partition of the estate left by her son, Rangasami Naidu. The bus service was one of the items of properties, in respect of which partition was claimed. With a view to establish her title to the properties, she applied, on 6th September, 1957, to the 1st respondent for the grant of certified copies of the income-tax returns filed by G. V. Rangasami Naidu and also the assessment orders thereon for the years 1951-52 to 1956-57. The petitioner does not want that the 2nd respondent should obtain the copies, and she has applied for the issue of a writ by this Court to prevent the 1st respondent from granting the copies.

The case for the petitioner is that she is the sole legal representative of the deceased, treated at any rate as such by the income-tax authorities, and that, therefore, the grant of the copies to the 2nd respondent would contravene the provisions of section 54 of the Indian Income-tax Act. That position is denied by the 2nd respondent. She claims that she is also one of the legal representatives of the deceased, Rangasami Naidu, being entitled to a share of the assets left by him, and that she, representing the estate of the deceased, would be entitled to the copies applied for. It is contended on her behalf that section 54 confers only a privilege on the assessee to treat the documents referred to therein as confidential, a privilege which could be waived by him, and she, standing in the shoes of the deceased, could exercise the same power, apply for the copies, obtain them and produce the same as evidence in the partition suit. In support of that contention, reliance was placed on the decision in Rama Rao v. Venkataramayya1, where it was held that a profit and loss statement and one showing details of net income filed by an assessee in support of his return were public documents which could be proved by the production of certified copies, and that section 54 of the Indian Income-tax Act did not make the issue of a certified copy of income-tax return to an assessee illegal. It was also held that the assessee was not bound to treat the documents as confidential. In Emperor v. Osman Chotani2, it was held that section 54 did not expressly enact that the documents referred to therein were inadmissible, but only provided that such documents, should be treated as confidential ; and that no Court could require a public servant to produce the same, but as the documents should be treated as confidential only in the hands of the Income-tax Officer, and not in the hands of other persons, it was open to an assessee to disclose the contents of the documents. A similar view was expressed in Suraj Narain v. Jhabbu Lal3 . In Buchibai v. Nagpur University4, the widow of a deceased assessee applied for and obtained certified copies of the statements made by the assessee to the income-tax authorities. The principal question decided was that it was open to the assessee to produce or allow p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document