LexTULSIRAM SANGANARIA & ANR. versus SHRIMATI ANNI RAI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
310 TULSIRAM SANGANARIA & ANR. v. SHRIMATI ANNI RAI & ORS. January 1, 1971 [J. C. SHAH. C.J., K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] Income-tax Acl (11 of 1922), s. 54-Production of assessment order hy assessee or his representative-If admissible in evidence. A B Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, created a complete bar to the production by officials and other servants of the Inc(\me-tax Depart- ment of the documents mentioned in the section. But, where the assessee or his representative-in-interest himself pioduces a copy of tl_ie income- tax assessment order in any legal proceeding the order would be admissi- C ble in evidence. (311 H; 312 G-H; 31 B Al ' Emperor v. Osman Chotani, (1942) 10 I.T.R. 429, Suraj Narain v. Seth Jhabhu LG/ & Ors., ( 1945) 13 I.T.R. 13 and Buchibai v. Nagpur University, (1947) 15 I.T.R. 150, approved. Charu Chandra Kurtdu v. Gurupada Ghosh, [1962] 2 S.C.R. 833, re- ferred to. D C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDIDTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1001 to 1003 Of 1965. Appeals from the judgment and decree dated December 22, 1961 of the Orissa High Court in First Appeals' Nos. 82, 83 and 84 of 1958. E Bis/um Narain and P. C. Bhartari, for the appellants (in all the appeals). B. P. Maheshwari, for respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 1002 of 1965). Sadhu Singh Md Jagmohan Khanna, for respondents Nos. 1 to S (in C.A. No. 1003 of 1965). · · The Judgment of the Court -was delivered by Grover, J. These appeals ha~e been brought by certifi- cate from a common judgment of the Orissa High Court. Five different suits were filed agamst certain defendants on the foot of five different pronotes. All the five suits were heard together and were decreed by the trial judge. In respect of two suits the valuation being low the appeals were preferred before F G the District Judge and in three suits the appeals were filed in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeals. It is al- H together unnecessary to refer to the points in controversy between the parties because the sole question which has been agitated before us relates to the admissibility of certain assessment orders / TULSIRAM v. ANNI RA! (Grover, ]. ) 311 A on which reliance has been placed for deciding whether the con- testing defendants ·were the partners of firm Surajmal Manila! on whose behalf the pro.notes had been executed. The learned s~b ordinate judge had found that the suit transactions we_re genume and execution on behalf of the firm as well as the pa~smg of con- sideration had been proved. . He had further found that the con- B testing defendants were joint with their uncle Manila! in 1949 and that they were the partners of the firm Surajmal Manila!-. being members of a trading family, and therefore they were liable to the extent of the assets of the joint family in their hands. It ap!Jears that the assessment orders were l?roduced not by the con- testing defendants but by the. son of Mamlal who was the asses.see. After examining s. 54 of the Income tax ".'-ct 1922 and t~e vanous decisions of the High Courts the learned iudges of the High C~urt came to the conclusion that the general consensus was that 1f a c D E F G H copy of the assessment order or a certified copy thereof wa~ ~ro duced by the assessee waiving his privilege it would be adm1ss1ble in evidence. Section 54 ( 1 ) of the Act was in the following terms : S. 54.( 1) "All particulars contained in any state- ment made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced under the provisions of this Act, or in any eviden_<;_e given, or affidavit or deposition made, in the course of any proceedings under this Act other than proceedings under this Chapter, or in any record of any assessment proceeding, or any proceeding relating to the recovery of a demand, prepared for the purposes of this Act, shall be treated as confidential, and notwithstand- ing anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872), no Court shall, save as provided in this Act, be entitled to require any public servant to produce before it any such return, accounts, documents or record or any part of any such record, or to give evidence ·before it in respect thereof." Under sub-section (2) if a public servant disclosed any particu- lars contained in a statement, return etc. mentioned in sub-s. ( 1) he was liable to punishment with imprisonment as well as fine. The prohibition against disclosure was not applicable to the facts
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.