DAULAT RAM Vs. SOM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision filed by Daulat Ram and three toher petitioners is directed against the order of learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, whereby he allowed the claim of privilege in respect of certain document made by the Income Tax Officer and Sales Tax Officer. The brief facts of the case are that Som Nath, Om Prakash, Satya Pal and Jagdish Chander, respondents No. 1 to 4, all of whom are brtohers, filed a petition for ejectment from the premises in dispute under section 14 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, against Daulat Ram and Ram and Ram Lal, respondents Nos. 5 and 6, and the four petitioners. The ejectment was sought on the ground that Daulat Ram and Ram Lal, respondents, had sublet, assigned and parted with possession of the premises in dispute in favor of the petitioner. During the pendency of those proceedings the petitioner applied for summoning the clerk of the Income Tax Officer with balance-sheet and profit and loss accounts for the year 1950 to 1954 of Rama Machinery Stores Company. The case of the petitioner was that Rama Machinery Stores Company was carrying o business in the suit premises since 1950 as a tenant and that Lachhman Singh, petitioner, was a partner of that firm. After summons had been issued, in accordance with the prayer of the petitioners, the Income Tax Officer sent a letter claiming privilege in respect of the production of the documents under section 54 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 . According to the Income Tax Officer he could nto produce the aforesaid documents on account of the bar created by that provision of law. The petitioner also applied for summoning the clerk of the officer of the Commissioner of Sales-tax, Delhi, with the file of Rama Machinery Stores Company and that of Golden Machinery Stores Company. It was also mentioned by the petitioners that they were particularly keep about the production of application forms S. T. I. relating to the registration of the above-mentioned two firms. After summons, as prayed by the petitioners, had been issued and served, the Sales Tax Officer wrtoe a letter claiming privilege to the production of the aforesaid document under section 25 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Ac, 1941, as extended to Delhi.

(2.) The petitioners contested the claims of privilege made by the Income Tax Officer and the Sales Tax officer. The learned Additional Rent Controller, after hearing arguments in the matter, upheld the claims of privilege and ordered that the authorities concerned could nto be called upon to produce the documents in question. The petitioners having felt aggrieved have now come up to this court. Mr. Vohra, on behalf of the petitioner, has assailed the impugned order and has contended that the claims of privilege should have been disallowed. As against that, Mr. Khanna, on behalf of the four landlord-respondent, and Mr. Kirpal, on behalf of the Income Tax Officer who too has been imp leaded as a respondent in the revision, have canvassed for the correctness of the decision of the Additional Rent Controller. Before dealing with the claim of privilege made by the Income Tax Officer, I shall deal with the claim made by the Sales Tax Officer because this aspect of the case affords no difficulty. Sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi, reads as under : &quto;All particulars contained in any statement made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced in accordance with this Act, or in any record of evidence given in the course of any proceedings under this Act, toher than proceedings before a Criminal Court, shall, save as provided in sub-section (3), be treated as confidential, and ntowithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872), no court shall, save as aforesaid, be entitled to require any servant of the Government to produce before it any such statement, return account, document or record or any part thereof, or to give evidence before it in respect thereof.&quto; A bare perusal of the above provisions of law makes it clear that, except is some specified case, with which were nto concerned, no court shall be entitled to require production of any statement made, return furnished or accounts or document produced in accordance with the provision of the above Act. The language of the section is of a comprehensive nature and prevents the productions of all kinds of documents and return which have been filed with the sales tax authorities. The document sought to be produced from the Sales Tax Officer are of the kind covered by the above section, and, in the circumstances, the Sales Tax Officer, in my opinion, was fully justified in claiming privilege to the production of those documents. Coming now to the privilege claimed by the Income Tax Officer, I find that sub-section (1) of section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922), under which the privilege has been claimed, reads as under : &quto;All particulars contained in any statement made, returns 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 toher than proceedings under this Chapter, or in any record of any assessment proceedings, or any proceedings relating to the recovery of a demand, prepared for the purpose of this Act, shall be treated as confidential, and ntowithstanding anything contained in the India 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.&quto;

(3.) On 1st April, 1962, the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), came into force and as from that case the Indian Income Tax Act of 1922 including section 54 was repealed. Sub-section (1) of section 137 of the Act of 1961 was substantially the same as sub-section (1) of section 54 of Act of 1922. In the sub-section (3) of section 137 of the Act of 1961 are enumerated a number of matters in respect of which the bar to disclosure was removed. Section 138 of Act of 1961 empowered the Commissioner of Income Tax if he was satisfied that there were no circumstances justifying its refusal to furnish or cause to be furnished the information asked for ntowithstanding anything contained in section 137 of the Act. Finance Act, 1964 (5 of 1964), came into force on 1st April, 1964, and by this Act a number of amendments were made in the Income Tax Act of 1961. Section 137 of the Income Tax Act to 1961 was omitted and for section 138 the following section was substituted : &quto;138. Disclosure of information respecting assesseds. -(1) Whether a person makes an application to the Commissioner in the prescribed form for any information relating to any assessed in respect of any assessment made either under this Act or the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), on or after in 1st day of April, 1960, the Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that it is in the public interest so to do, furnish or cause to be furnished the information asked for in the respect of that assessment only and his decision in this behalf shall be final and shall nto be called in question in any court of law. (2) Ntowithstanding anything contained in sub-section (i) or any toher law for the time being inforce, the Central Government may, having regard to the practices and usages customary or any toher relevant factors, by order ntoified in the Official Gazette, direct that no information or document shall be furnished or produced by public servant in respect of such matters relating to such class of assessed or except to such authorities as may be specified in the order.&quto;