AGGARWAL O P ITO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .

(2.) THIS petition for revision raises the question of the priviledge attaching to the records of assessments made by the income-tax authorities. Shambu Das brought a complaint under section 406, Indian Penal Code, against Jiwa Ram Chopra in the court of the Magistrate, First Class, Jullundur. In the course of the trial the complainant applied to the court for summoning "the income-tax file of Hindu undivided family firm, Messrs. Kishan Chand Nanak Chand, Cloth Merchants, Lal Bazar, Jullundur City" for the income-tax year 1947-48, through the Income-tax Officer, C-Ward. Jullundur. THIS was stated to be necessary in order to bring on record the affidavit filed by Shrimati Gomti Devi, mother of Jiwa Ram accused, in the course of the assessment proceedings and the final order passed by the income-tax authorities. Accepting this application the learned Magistrate issued an order to the present petitioner, Om Prakash Aggarwal, the Income-tax Officer concerned, to produce the relevant file. On the 19th November, 1963, the petitioner Income-tax Officer sent a letter to the court through his inspector claiming privilege under section 137 of the Income tax Act, 1961, pointing out that in accordance with that provision the assessment records were to be treated as confidential and no court was entitled to require any public servant to produce these records or to give evidence therefrom. The learned trial judge refused to accept this contention and holding that no such claim of previlidge could be made if the records were required for the purposes of a prosecution under the Indian Penal Code, directed the Income-tax Officer to produce the same on the 28th November, 1963.

(3.) THE respondents learned counsel, on the other hand, has pointed out that the authority of the Commissioner to supply or withhold information under sub-section (1) of section 138, as it stands amended by the Finance Act, 1964, is confined only to assessments made on or after the 1st day of April, 1960, and this provision cannot apply to the records of the assessments completed before the 1st day of April, 1960. THE literal construction of the relevant provision does seem to bear out this argument but, as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there does not appear to be any cogent reason for thinking that the modified priviledge, which the legislature has introduced by section 33 of the Finance Act, 1964, ammending section 138, should have been intended to apply only to the assessments made on or after the 1st day of April, 1960, and leave the income-tax records and assessment proceedings relevant to the earlier period unprotected and open to public sscrutiny except for the limited priviledge which can be claimed under the general provisions contained in sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act.