LAWS(PVC)-1939-6-22

PROMATHA NATH PRAMANICK Vs. NIRODE CHANDRA GHOSE

Decided On June 05, 1939
PROMATHA NATH PRAMANICK Appellant
V/S
NIRODE CHANDRA GHOSE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to vary or set aside a special report made by Mr. S.C. Ghose acting as special referee under a decree made by me on 10 February 1938. The suit was instituted by two persons of the name Pramanick against the defendant on the allegation that he was the manager of a business which traded under the style of Kali Krishna Pramanick and of which the plaintiffs were the owners. On this basis, the plaintiffs claimed an account on the footing of wilful default. Alternatively the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was a partner in the firm of Kali Krishna Pramanick, his share being six annas, the remaining ten annas being the property of the plaintiffs. On this basis they sued for partnership accounts. In his written statement, the defendant denied that he was a servant of the plaintiffs, and alleged that he was a partner in the firm of Kali Krishna Pramanick, his shares in the partnership being eight annas while the remaining eight annas belonged to the plaintiffs jointly. When the suit was heard the plaintiffs abandoned the contention that the defendant was an employee of the firm, and accordingly the main issue between the parties was whether the defendant owned eight annas share in the firm or a six annas share. The order for reference is in the following terms: The Special Referee is directed : (a) to enquire whether the share of the defendant in the partnership was increased to eight annas as pleaded in para. 5 of the written statement, and (b) also to take account of all dealings and transactions in respect of the partnership from 5 December 1919 upto 14 May 1934.

(2.) When the Special Referee had entered upon the reference, and while he was dealing with the question of the extent of the defendant's share in the partnership, the defendant's counsel sought to tender certified copies of certain documents which he had obtained from the Income-tax Department. The plaintiffs objected that these documents were inadmissible in evidence, and at their request the Special Referee has made a special report, in which after setting out the circumstances of the case, he has come to the provisional conclusion that the certified copies of certain income-tax assessment orders are admissible. There was also an attempt to tender the order sheet of the Income-tax Officer -who dealt with the assessment, but the contention that this certified copy is admissible is now not pressed. The assessment orders which have been tendered purport to show that the partners in the firm of Kali Krishna Pramanick for the year of assessment 1934-35 were Kali Krishna Pramanick, that is to say the two plaintiffs, to the extent of ten annas, and the defendant to the extent of six annas. Thereafter up to the year of assessment 1934-35 the plaintiffs are shown as owning eight annas and the defendant as owning the remaining eight annas. I should add that the firm is an unregistered firm.

(3.) The plaintiffs seek to exclude these certified copies of the assessment orders on the ground that they fall within the scope of Section 54, Income-tax1 Act, of 1922. There is no doubt that the original assessment orders are within the scope of the Section, which enacts that all particulars contained (inter alia) in any record of any assessment proceeding shall be treated as confidential, and that notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, no Court shall, save as provided by the Income-tax Act, be entitled to require any public servant to produce before it any such return, account, document or record or any part of such record, or to give evidence before it in respect thereof. Sub-section 2 of Section 54 imposes a heavy penalty on a public servant who discloses such particulars. The purpose of the Section is clearly to secure that assessees shall not be deterred from making a frank statement of their income and financial position generally by the fear that the information which they supply to the Department will thereafter be disclosed to other persons, who may use it to the detriment of the assessees.