SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1940 Supreme(Mad) 122

ALFRED HENRY LIONEL LEACH
Katikineni Venkata Gopala Narasimha Rama Rao – Appellant
Versus
Chitluri Venkatramayya – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. Before proceeding to examine the provisions of the sections of the Indian Evidence Act mentioned in the question under reference it is desirable to state the effect of Section 54 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, as in some cases where certified copies of the Income Tax documents have been tendered in evidence its provisions have been misunderstood and misapplied. Sub-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 course 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



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top