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

1965 Supreme(P&H) 107

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
J.S.Bedi, Gurdev Singh and S.B.Capoor JJ.
O.P.Aggarwal, Income-tax Officer, C-ward, Jullundur
Versus
State
Criminal Revision No. 35 of 1964,
Decided On : APRIL 27, 1965

Section 137 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, does not apply to assessments made before the 1st day of April, 1962.

Headnote:

INCOME TAX - PRIVILEGE - ASSESSMENT RECORDS - SECTION 137 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 - WHETHER APPLIES TO ASSESSMENTS MADE BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1962 - SECTION 6 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 - WHETHER APPLICABLE.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an Income-tax Officer, was directed by the trial court to produce the assessment record of a Hindu undivided family firm for the income-tax year 1947-48. The petitioner claimed privilege under section 137 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but the trial court rejected the claim. The petitioner then filed a revision petition in the High Court.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that section 137 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, did not apply to assessments made before the 1st day of April, 1962. The court also held that section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, was applicable to the case and that the protection from and prohibition of disclosure of assessment records as afforded by section 54 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was still available to the petitioner.

Issues: Whether section 137 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applies to assessments made before the 1st day of April, 1962.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that section 137 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, did not apply to assessments made before the 1st day of April, 1962, because the section was not retrospective in operation. The court also held that section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, was applicable to the case and that the protection from and prohibition of disclosure of assessment records as afforded by section 54 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was still available to the petitioner.

Final Decision: The High Court set aside the orders of the trial court dated the 19th November, 1963, and the 28th November, 1963, and directed that the records be returned to the petitioner.

Judgment

GURDEV SINGH, J.

1. This petition for revision raises the question of the priviledge attaching to the records of assessments made by the income-tax authorities. Shambu Das brought a complaint under section 406, Indian Penal Code, against Jiwa Ram Chopra in the court of the Magistrate, First Class, Jullundur. In the course of the trial the complainant applied to the court for summoning "the income-tax file of Hindu undivided family firm, Messrs. Kishan Chand Nanak Chand, Cloth Merchants, Lal Bazar, Jullundur City" for the income-tax year 1947-48, through the Income-tax Officer, C-Ward. Jullundur. This was stated to be necessary in order to bring on record the affidavit filed by Shrimati Gomti Devi, mother of Jiwa Ram accused, in the course of the assessment proceedings and the final order passed by the income-tax authorities. Accepting this application the learned Magistrate issued an order to the present petitioner, Om Prakash Aggarwal, the Income-tax Officer concerned, to produce the relevant file. On the 19th November, 1963, the petitioner Income-tax Officer sent a letter to the court through his inspector claiming privilege under section 137 of the Income tax Act, 1961, pointing out that in accordance with that provision the assessment records were to be treated as confidential and no court was entitled to require any public servant to produce these records or to give evidence therefrom. The learned trial judge refused to accept this contention and holding that no such claim of previlidge could be made if the records were required for the purposes of a prosecution under the Indian Penal Code, directed the Income-tax Officer to produce the same on the 28th November, 1963.

2. On the adjourned hearing, the petitioner, Shri Om Prakash Aggarwal, himself went to the court with the requisitioned file in a sealed cover and made an application claiming privilege under section 137 of the Income-tax Act 1961. In support of this application Income-tax officer, Jullundur v. State, Charu Chandra Kundu v. Gurupada Ghosh and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Laxmichand Narayandas were cited before the trial court. The learned Magistrate, however, distinguished these cases on the ground that they were based on consideration of section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and not of any provision of the Act of 1961. Being still of the opinion that no exemption could be claimed under sub-section (3) of section 137 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, she ruled that no priviledge attached to the records summoned from the petitioner-Income-tax Officer, especially when copies of the three documents, which were sought to be proved at the trial, had already been granted by the income-tax authorities. Being not satisfied with this order, the petitioner went up in revision to the court of session at Jullundur and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has now referred the case to this court under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the recommendation that the order of the Magistrate requiring the petitioner to produce the assessment record in question be quashed as it was not warranted by the provisions of section 137 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

3. Section 137 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on which reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioner, so far as it is relevant for our purposes, runs as follows :

"137. (1) All particulars contained in any statement made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced under the provisions of this Act, or in any evidence given, or affidavit or deposition made in the course of any proceedings under this Act, other than proceedings under Chapter XXII, or in any record of any assessment proceeding, or any proceeding relating to recovery of a demand, prepared for the purposes of this Act shall be treated as confidential, and notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), no court shall, save as provided in this Act, be entitled to require any public servant to produce be

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top