TULSIRAM SANGANARIA & Anr. v. SHRIMATI ANNI RAI & Ors.

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. F G 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 the District Judge and in three suits the appeals were filed in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeals. 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 It is al- H TULSIRAM v. ANNI RA! (Grover, ]. ) 311 B 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- 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 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 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. their hands. c / D 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 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 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 and particulars in such cases and circumstances as were set out in sub-s. (3). Now it is quite clear that s. 54 created a complete bar to the production by officials and other servants of Department of any such documents which were mentioned sub-ss. (I) and (2). treat as confidential the records and documents mentioned in the It also made it obligatory on Income E F G H 312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971 J 3 s.c.R. su~-sections. They were further prohibited from giving. any ev1d~nce ~elating to them. The question which came up. cons1derat1on before the courts was if the documents could be given without requiring a public servant to produce them could the court allow them to be tendered and admitted into evidence ? The Madras High Court held in Mythili Ammal v. Janaki Ammal & Another('1) that statements made in income tax returns could not be brought up in court against the person making them or against any one else nor could the income returns be proved by secondary evidence under s. 64 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Oqcutta High Court in Promatha Nath Pramanick v. Nirode Chandra Ghose(') considered it startling that when an assessment order was to be treated as confidential under s. 54 of the Act a joint assessee could be permitted the use of the copy of such an order to the detriment of his co-assessee in contentious proceed ings between them. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court, however, held in Rama Rao v. Venkataramayya(') that a return was confidential and could not be disclosed to a third party but there could be no objection to the maker of a return having a copy for his own purposes if he so desired and he was not bound to treat the document as confidential. In other words he could produce .that document as evidence in court. In our opinion the law It is unnecessary for the purposes of this case to go into the larger question ot production of the documents covered by s . .;i4 ( l ) by third parties as it was the son of Manila! the assessee who had produced ~e 1ssessment orders which are in dispute. There is an overwhelming weight of authority in favour of view that assessment orders could be produced by the assessee or his repres.entative-in-interest; see J:.fn:peror v. Osman Chotani('), Suraj Narain v. Seth Jhabhu Lal & Others(') and Buchibai v. laid down by Nagpur University( 6 ). these cases on the admissibility of evidence of assessment orders produced by an assessee or his representative-in.'futerest is un excej:>fjonable. We ma)> refer to a decision .of thi~ Cou~ in Charu Chandra Kundu v. Gurupada Ghosh(') on which reliance was placed on behalf. of the appell~nts. There the app.ell, ant had applied to the tnal court praymg that the Comm1ss1pnler of Income tax be directed to arrange for the production before the court of the record of the statement made by respondent In that situation it was held that the prohibition impos therein. ed under s. 54 of the Act was absolute and the operation of the section was not obliterated by any waiver by the assessee in whose assessmen~ the evidenc_e was tendered, documents produced or (1) 7 I.T.R. 657: (3) 8 J.T.R. 450. (5) (1945) 13 I.T.R. 13. (7) [1962) 2 S.C.R. 833. (2) 7 I.T.R. 570. (4) (1942) IO I.T.R. 429. (1947) JS I.T.R.150. (6) D E F G H TULSIRAM v. ANNI II.AI (Grover, 1.) 313 A record prepared. It is app~nt that in that case the question of production of an assessment order by the assessee himself did not come up for consideration. These apJ,>Cals fail and are dismissed with costs. One hearing_ fee. B V.P.S. Appeals dismissed ..