Case: Charu Chandra Kundu Vs. Gurupada Ghosh

protection and privilege under S. 54 of the Income-tax Act.3. It was the case of the appellant that in certain proceedings relating to assessment of income-tax of the appellant for the year 1949-50, the respondent had on February 22, 1950, made a statement before the Income-tax Officer, and to support his defence in the suit he desired that the statement be produced before the Court. The trial Court upheld the objection raised by the Commissioner of Income-tax that in view of S. 54, he could not be required to produce the statement he was summoned to produce, and the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in exercise of its jurisdiction under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure confirmed that view.4. Section 54 of the Income-tax Act by the first sub-section declares all particulars contained in any statement made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced under the provisions of the Income-tax Act or in any evidence given, or affidavit or deposition made, in the course of any proceedings of any assessment proceedings under Chap. VIII, or in any record of any assessment proceeding or any proceeding relating to the recovery of a demand prepared for the purposes of the Act, shall be treated as confidential. The sub-section then proceeds to state that notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no court shall save as provided in the Act, be entitled to require any public servant to produce before it any such return, accounts, documents or record or any part of any such record or to give evidence before it in respect thereof. By sub-s. (2), a public servant disclosing any particular contained in any such document, return, accounts, documents, evidence, affidavit, deposition or record, is liable to be punished with imprisonment which may expend to six months and also with fine. These provisions however do not apply to certain documents specified in cls. (a) to (p) of sub-s. (3).5. It is manifest that disclosure of information given to public servants in the course of income-tax proceedings has by a comprehensive provision been prohibited. The Income-tax authorities are directed by the provision to treat the information disclosed, evidence given, and documents produced as confidential : the Courts are prohibited from requiring any public servant to produce the documents or the records and even to give evidence in respect thereof, and the public servants disclosing the particulars of the evidence, documents or record are penalised. The statement alleged to be made by the respondent in the assessment proceedings is not of the nature described in sub-s. (3) of S. 54, and is therefore not exempt from the operation of sub-ss. (1) and (2). There being an express interdict against the Court requiring production of the document, the Subordinate Judge was right in declining to accede to the request of the appellant.6. Mr. Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that S. 54 is enacted only for the protection of the assessee, and if the assessee waives the privilege enacted for his protection, the prohibition contained therein will be inoperative. But there is no such exception, express or implied, in the language used by the legislature. The prohibition imposed against the Court by S. 54 is absolute : its operation is not obliterated by any waiver by the assessee in whose assessment the evidence is tendered, document produced or record prepared.7. Mr. Chatterjee relied upon Buchibai v. Nagpur University, (1947) 15 ITR 150 : (AIR 1946 Nag 377) in support of his contention that an assessee is entitled to waive the privilege which confers protection upon him by S. 54. In that case, however, the only question which fell to be determined was whether certified copies of statements recorded or orders passed by the Income-tax authorities were admissible in evidence under S. 65 of the Evidence Act to prove the contents of those documents. The Court in that case observed :"The direction that such document (documents described in S. 54) shall be treated as confidential is a direction to officials of the Income-tax Department, and in our opinion it is open to an assessee to waive that right and to give evidence, if he desires, or particulars contained in such a record, as was held in Rama Rao v. Venkataramayya, 1940-8 ITR 450 :(AIR 1940 Mad 768) (FB). There is nothing in S. 54 which prohibits the giving of such evidence; the section merely directs officials of the Income-tax Department to treat such documents as confidential and prohibits the Court from requiring public servants to produce such documents or to give evidence about such documents."8. But the question whether a certified copy of the statement made by the respondent before the Income-tax Officer is admissible does not fall to be determined in this appeal. The Subordinate Judge expressly recorded in the proceeding dated November 18, 1955 that he did "not mean to say that certified copy of the document will not be admissible in evidence at the time of the trial of the suit if the said certified copy is otherwise found to be admissible in evidence." Buchibais case, (1947) 15 ITR 150 : (AIR 1946 Nag 377) is a decision about the admissibility of a certified copy of the statement made by one Laxminarayan to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax: it did not decide that the Court could require production by summons of the original statements from the records of the Assistant Commissioner.9. A similar view as to admissibility of certified copies of statements made before the Income-tax authorities was also expressed in 1940-8 ITR 450 : (AIR 1940 Mad 768) (FB), Suraj Narain v. Jhabhu Lal, (1945) 13 ITR 13 : (AIR 1944 All 114 ) and Banarsi Devi v. Janki Devi, AIR 1959 Pat 172 . We may observe that we are not called upon to express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of these decisions. Suffice it to say that they have no application to the question to be determined in this appeal.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]5. It is manifest that disclosure of information given to public servants in the course of income-tax proceedings has by a comprehensive provision been prohibited. The Income-tax authorities are directed by the provision to treat the information disclosed, evidence given, and documents produced as confidential : the Courts are prohibited from requiring any public servant to produce the documents or the records and even to give evidence in respect thereof, and the public servants disclosing the particulars of the evidence, documents or record are penalised. The statement alleged to be made by the respondent in the assessment proceedings is not of the nature described in sub-s. (3) of S. 54, and is therefore not exempt from the operation of sub-ss. (1) and (2). There being an express interdict against the Court requiring production of the document, the Subordinate Judge was right in declining to accede to the request of thethere is no such exception, express or implied, in the language used by the legislature. The prohibition imposed against the Court by S. 54 is absolute : its operation is not obliterated by any waiver by the assessee in whose assessment the evidence is tendered, document produced or record prepared.But the question whether a certified copy of the statement made by the respondent before the Income-tax Officer is admissible does not fall to be determined in this appeal. The Subordinate Judge expressly recorded in the proceeding dated November 18, 1955 that he did "not mean to say that certified copy of the document will not be admissible in evidence at the time of the trial of the suit if the said certified copy is otherwise found to be admissible in evidence." Buchibais case, (1947) 15 ITR 150 : (AIR 1946 Nag 377) is a decision about the admissibility of a certified copy of the statement made by one Laxminarayan to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax: it did not decide that the Court could require production by summons of the original statements from the records of the Assistantmay observe that we are not called upon to express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of these decisions. Suffice it to say that they have no application to the question to be determined in this appeal.