GIRISH NANDAN SINGH Vs. SATYANARAIN AGARWAL DHANDHANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit in the court below praying for a money decree against the petitioner on the basis of a promissory note evidencing a loan of Rs. 4,000. THE defendant has, inter alia, stated in his written statement that he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,000 only. With a view to support his plea, the defendant prayed before the court for calling for the profit and loss account attached to the plaintiff's income-tax return. THE prayer was allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge and the Income-tax Department, Monghyr, sent the document to the court without any objection. THE defendant then wanted to tender the paper in evidence and to get it marked as an exhibit. THE plaintiff objected. THE prayer of the defendant has been rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge by the order impugned in this revision application.

(2.) MR. D, N, Sinha, learned counsel appearing in support of this application, has contended that the learned subordinate judge erred in relying upon the decisions including the case in Banarsi Devi v. Janki Devi [1959] 37 ITR 510 (Pat), which were decided when the earlier Act being the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, was in force. The position under the Act of 1961, after the repeal of Section 137 in 1964, is entirely different and the petitioner is entitled to get the document in question admitted in evidence. MR. Jugal Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the plaintiff, has urged that in view of Section 138 of the 1961 Act, any information relating to any assessee cannot be divulged to or at the instance of any person other than the assessee himself, as the same cannot be held to be in public interest. No disclosure is permissible in private interest.

(3.) THE defendant contends that as a result of this amendment, the right of the plaintiff, of claiming confidential nature of his income-tax documents, has disappeared and the earlier decisions have no relevance now since the matter concerns the I.T. Dept of the Union of India also, and Section 138 refers to the discretion of the Commissioner of Income-tax, in regard to certain matters, in the stated circumstances, I considered it expedient to hear the standing counsel of the I.T. Dept. and a notice was accordingly issued. In response, Mr. B.P. Rajgarhia assisted by Mr. S.K. Saran appeared and supported the petitioner.