There can be no pressure either on the Income-tax department or on the assessee to produce the assessment and returns of the assessee in Court.

This revision is filed against the order of the Subordinate Judge in I.A. No. 420 of 1956 in O.S. No. 140 of 1953 on the file of this Court. That application was one made by the first defendant, the present petitioner, under Order 11, rule 14, Civil Procedure Code, for directing the plaintiff to produce into Court the documents discovered by her in Schedules B and C to her affidavit of discovery. The application was ordered in regard to the B Schedule documents, but it was refused in regard to the documents discovered in Schedule C. Those documents are assessment orders, and returns and statements submitted by the plaintiff to the Income-Tax Officer. The plaintiff claimed that those documents were “confidential” within the meaning of section 54 of the Income-tax Act and that therefore she could not be compelled to produce them into Court. It is clear-and, indeed, it was not disputed-that the documents in controversy would fall within the description of documents mentioned in the said section. If so, it follows that those documents shall be treated as confidential. But the question is whether the documents should be treated as confidential only so far as the Income-tax Department is concerned, and whether they are not confidential as regards the assessee, and whether, therefore the plaintiff in the present case can be compelled to put them into Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Emperor v. Osman Chotani1, in support of his contention. That was a case where an investigating police officer served a summons on the Income-tax Commissioner requiring him to produce certain documents lodged by the accused in connection with his return for income-tax. The Commissioner of Income-tax declined to produce the documents in question, considering himself precluded from doing so by the provision of section 54 of the Income-tax Act. Thereupon, the police authorities carried out a search of the office of the Income-tax Commissioner and seized certain documents which had been lodged with the Income-tax Department by the accused. The Chief Presidency Magistrate, before whom the documents were tendered in evidence, held that they were not admissible in evidence on the view that section 54 constituted an absolute bar to the Court considering any of the documents lodged under the Act. But the Bombay High Court held that such extreme view was erroneous, and Beaumont, C.J., who delivered the judgment of the Bench, observed that the section does not expressly enact that the documents are inadmissible in evidence and that, in providing that the documents are to be treated as confidential, the Legislature meant that they are to be treated by the Income-tax authorities as confidential. The learned Chief Justice further observed:

“All that the section means is that the Income-tax authorities are to regard communications made to them for the purpose of the Income-tax Act as being confidential, the object, no doubt, being to enable people to feel that they can freely state the facts relating to their income, facts which may often involve confidential matters relating to their business, without fear of the matters being disclosed. But, as long as there is no disclosure by a member of the income-tax staff, I do not think the direction to treat them as confidential is infringed. The main operative part of the section, however, is that the Court cannot require any public servant to produce these documents. I see no justification for extending the operation of those words beyond their natural and proper meaning. If a document can be given in evidence, without requiring a public servant to produce it, there seems to be nothing in the section to preclude that from being done”.

The above decision, no doubt, supports the contention of the petitioner. According to it, the only effect of section 54 is to prohibit a Court from directing any public servant to produce before it any of the documents mention