DAGI RAM PINDI LAL AND ANR versus TRILOK CHAND JAIN AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 1 S.C.R. 545 · Decided: 04-02-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

DAGI RAM PINDI LAL AND ANR 
V. 
TRILOK CHAND JAIN AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 4, 1992 
[KULDIP SINGH AND DR. A.S. ANAND, JJ.] 
Income Tax Act, 1922-Section 54 and Section 137 of the Income Tax 
Act, 1961-Repea/ of 1922 Act and omission of Section 137-- Jurisdiction 
of Courts to call for the record-Scope of. 
Inc01ne Tax Act, 196.1-Section 138( 1 )(b }-Scope and application 
of-Jurisdiction and powers of Commissioner of Income Tax under- Scope 
of-court's order for Production of Record--Commissioner cannot 
refuse-Omission of Section 137--Legislative intention. 
Income Tax Act, 1961-Sections 138( I)(b ), 137 read with section q 
General Clauses Act-Repeal of any Enactment-Effect~mission of Sec-
tion 137-court's order for production of recor~an on Court's jurisdiction 
whether continues. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Income Tax Act, 1961-Sections 137, 138( l)(b )-Repeal of Section 
137-Documents relating to assessment proceedings for 1964-65 on-
E 
wards-Filed ·before the authority after 1.4.1964 by assessee--Wltetlzer Court 
can summon. 
The Plaintiff·respondent instituted a suit for recovery of. Rs. 
1,39,72~.86 against the defendantsilppellants. 
When evidence was being recorded in the suit proceedings, the 
plaintiff obtained summons from the court requiring the Income Tax 
Department to produce in the court records relating to the income tax 
assessment of the defendants for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1971-72. 
The Income Tax Officer produced the record in a sealed cover. 
The plaintiff also obtained summons requiring the Income Tax 
Officer to produce the income tax record relating tn two other assessees, 
l\'hich wa~ produced in the Court by the Department in a sealed cover with 
F 
G 
a submission that no disclosure of information regarding income tax H 
545 
546 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1992] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
pertaining to an income tax JlSSessce could be made. The plaintiffs in the 
meanwhile filed in the court a number of certified copies of the accounts 
of the defendants, which he had obtained from the Income-Tax authorities 
and sought permission of the Court to tender the cerlified copies in 
evidence. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Before a Single Judge of the High Court on the question of privilege 
as claimed by the Income Tax Department, arguments were addressed by 
the parties. 
The following three questions were referred to the· Full Bench 
(i) 
(ii) 
(iii) 
What is the position of law relating to privilege prior to 1964 ? 
What is the position of law relating to privilege after 1964? and 
What is the effect of the production of certified copies relating to 
income-tax assessment records, and how far certified copies can · 
be admitted in evidence ? 
The FuU· Bench answered the first and second questions sustaining 
the claim of the privilege by the Income Tax Department and the Full 
Bench did not express any opinion on the third question. 
Against the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court, appeal 
was filed by special leave. The controversy before this Court was confined 
to the finding of the High Court relating to the claim of privilege for the 
production of documents which were filed after the repeal of Section 137, 
with effect from 1.4.1964 in respect of assessment years 1964-65 onwards. 
The appellants (defendants) conten~ed that after the repeal of Sec-
tion 137 of the Income~ Tax Act, 1961 by the Finance Act, 1964 there was 
no longer any impediment left in the way of a civil court to summon the 
production of documents filed by an assessee during the assessment 
G proceedings before an Income-Tax Officer after 1.4.1964 in respect of 
assessment years 1964-65 onwards, and that the finality attached to an 
order of the Commissioner with regard to claim of privilege under Section 
138(l)(b) had no relationship to the power of the court to summon that 
record. 
H 
Allowing the appeal of the defendants·appellants, this Court, 
DAGI RAM v. T.C. JAIN 
547 
HELD: 1.01. Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 and after its A 
repeal, Section 137 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had only placed fetters on 
the exercise of the jurisdiction, in· respect of the specified documents, by 
. the courts, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the 
time being in force. The exercise of the jurisdiction to seek production of 
documents h~d, only been put under a cloud in so far as the record of B 
assessment is concerned. [560E] 
1.02. With the repeal of the 1922 Act and omission of Section 137 of 
the 1961 Act, the fetters on 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.