P KANDIAH THEVAR Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER THIRD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the, Income-tax Officer, Tirunelveli, to grant a certified copy of a statement made by the second respondent, an assessee of the Income-tax department, in the course of his assessment proceedings.

(2.) THE second respondent filed a suit O.S. No. 130 of 1961, District Munsifs court, Shencottah, against the petitioner claiming ownership of a certain property. In the course of the assessment proceedings of the second respondent, certain statements were made both by the petitioner and the second respondent. It is stated by the petitioner that the second respondent in those income-tax proceedings admitted that the property does not belong. to him. In these proceedings the petitioner was also examined wherein he set up his title to the property. THE petitioner claimed that the statement made by the second respondent was necessary for being marked in evidence in the trial of the suit and accordingly applied Under Section 137 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for grant of copies of his own deposition as .well as that of the second respondent. THE Income-tax Officer granted copy of the petitioner's own deposition, but he refused to grant a copy of statement made by the second respondent on the ground that Section 54 of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922 prevented the grant of such a copy. THE petitioner claims that under the Act of 1961, the grant of a copy of a statement made by an assessee wherein he_ disowned ownership of certain property and admitted the ownership of another person is not prohibited and that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in refusing him the grant of the copy. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner invokes the special jurisdiction of this court to direct the Income-tax Officer to grant the copy in question.

(3.) A further argument advanced by Mr. Ranganathan for the department, is that Under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act also, the repeal of the old Act cannot affect any right or privilege which has accrued under the repealed Act. The argument is that the prohibition against disclosure is a right or privilege which has been secured by the assessee under the provisions of the repealed Act and that this right cannot be affected by the repeal of the 1922 Act.