RAMA RAO Vs. VENKATARAMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE relevant portion of the Order of Reference delivered by Wadsworth, J., on March 13, 1940 was as follows :-

(2.) THE legal difficulty may be briefly stated. Exs. E and H are both certified copies. If the original is a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act, then the certified copies are good secondary evidence of that original under Section 65 (e). If these statements are not public documents, we are unable to see how the certified copies can be admitted into evidence under any other clause of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Section 74 defines public documents as documents forming the acts or records of the acts (1) of the sovereign authority (2) of official bodies and tribunals and (3) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, and the term includes also public records kept in British India or private documents. THE question is whether an Income-tax return and the statements accompanying it from part of the record of the act of the Income-tax Officer who makes the assessment. In the case just referred to the learned judges decided, without quoting any authority other than the statutory provisions that it was the policy of the law that statements made in Income-tax returns should not be used in evidence against the person making them or against any one else, that income-tax returns could not be proved by secondary evidence and that the income-tax return was not part of the record of the Act of assessment and not a public document as defined in Section 74 of the Evidence Act. In coming to this conclusion, the learned Judges appear to have been greatly influenced by the provisions of Section 45 of the Indian Income-tax Act which prohibits the disclosure by any public servant of particulars contained in an Income-tax return or statement. Now quite clearly this section applies only to disclosures and does not prohibit the Income-tax Officer from giving to the person who made the return a copy of that return. In fact, we are informed that the departmental orders expressly provide for the giving of such a copy to the assessee on application. It seems to us that there is no ground of public policy which would prevent such an assessee from using in evidence such a copy when it has been granted to him. Nor are we convinced that the ground of public policy is a sufficient reason for excluding from evidence any document which is legally admissible under the Evidence Act and is not excluded by any statutory prohibition. This view has been adopted in the case of Venkataramana v. Varahalu a decision of Varadachariar and Pandrang Row, JJ., anterior to the decision of Burn and Stodart, JJ., but apparently not brought to their notice. Varadachariar and Pandrang Row, JJ., were actually dealing with a copy of a statement recorded by the Income-tax Officer which clearly was a public document and they held that certified copies of such a statement were admissible notwithstanding the provision of Section 54 of the Indian Income-tax Act. THE learned Judges refer to a decision in Anwar Ali v. Tafozal Ahmad wherein a single Judge held that Income-tax returns being made confidential by Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, certified copies of such a return could not lawfully be given and if given could not be used in evidence. In Devidutt v. Shriram Narayandoss a Bench of the Bombay High Court held that certified copies of an Income-tax return could not be given in evidence, because the return is not a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act and that the prohibition is Section 54 of the Indian Income-tax Act was sufficient to warrant the view that a certified copy could not be lawfully obtained and would not be admissible in evidence if obtained. It seems to us that these decisions raise a question of far-teaching importance. With all respect to the learned Judges who have held otherwise, we do not consider that prohibition amongst the disclosure of the contents of an Income-tax return can save any bearing on the admissibility of the contents of that return filed at the instance of the person who made it. If the Income-tax return is a part of the record of the act of the Income-tax Officer making the assessment, a certified copy of the document can lawfully be given, subject to the prohibition against disclosure in Section 54 of the Indian Income-tax Act. If it has been so given then by the terms of Section 65 of the evidence Act it is, no matter who produces it, good evidence of the original, provided that the original is a public document; and we do not think that considerations of public policy can warrant its exclusion from evidence. If an Income-tax return is not a public document, as being part of the record of the Act of assessing officer, it is difficult to see how a plaint of written statement in a civil suit or a complaint in a criminal case can be deemed to be public documents such as can be proved by the production of certified copies. It is the almost universal practice of the Court to grant certified copies of such documents and to admit them in evidence, though the admissibility of a certified copy of a plaint appears to have been successfully challenged in one or two cases, not of this High Court. We are inclined to the view that an Income-tax return being the basis of the Income-tax Officers assessment, must be treated as part of the record of the act of assessment and mush therefore be regarded as a public document of which a certified copy can be giver in evidence. THE matter, however, being the subject of somewhat conflicting rulings of Benches of this High Court, we refer to a Full Bench the following question :

(3.) IN Anwar Ali v. Tafozal Ahmad a single Judge of the Rangoon High Court held that INcome-tax return being made confidential by reason of Section 54 of the INcome-tax Act, and the disclosure of their contents being a punishable offence, certified copies cannot be admitted in evidence. The Court did not consider the effect of Section 74 of the INdian Evidence Act and decided against the admissibility of the certified copies submitted on the ground that Section 54 of the INdian INcome-tax Act made the issue of copies unlawful and made the disclosure of the particular contents in the return an offence punishable with imprisonment. IN my opinion there is here a misconception. Section 54 does not make the issue of a certified copy of an INcome-tax return to an assessee unlawful. The return is a confidential document and cannot be disclosed to a third party, but there can be no objection to the maker of the return having a copy for his own purposed if he so desires. So far as the assessee is concerned he is not bound to treat the document as confidential.