RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. BRIJLAL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Perused the impugned order dated 30.3.1994 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (West) Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby he rejected petitioner's application under Order 13, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure for summoning the file No. R/815 of plaintiff Ramesh Chandra from the Income Tax Officer, Circle-Khargon, Madhya Pradesh on the sole ground that the Income Tax Officer is not a Court and as such provisions of Rule 10 do not apply.

(2.) As per provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') the term Income Tax Authority also includes the Income Tax Officer. The Income Tax Officer infer aria has the power to assess the income of an assesses. He also has the power regarding of any person and examine him on oath, to compel the production of books of accounts and other documents and to issue commissions. Under Sec. 136 of the Act any proceedings before the Income Tax Authority shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 and for the purpose of Sec. 196 of the Indian Penal Code every Income Tax Authority shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purposes of Sec. 195, Criminal Procedure Code. Thus it is abundantly apparent that an Income Tax Officer is a Civil Court. Therefore the finding given by the learned Munsif to the effect that an Income Tax Officer is not a Court and as such provisions of Rule 10 do not apply is patently misconceived and fallacious, which cannot be sustained.

(3.) It is pertinent to point out that the learned trial Court has also not given in its finding as to whether the record sought to be sent for is material to the suit or not or whether such record could not be obtained by the petitioner without unreasonable delay or expenses or whether the production of the said original record is necessary for the purpose of justice or not.