High Court Of Andhra Pradesh
New Deccan Hall & Ors. vs. Delight Electrical Works & Ors.
Sections 138(b)
Mrs. T. Meena Kumari, J.
Civil Revision Petn. No. 5777 of 2001
4th February, 2002
Counsel Appeared
Mrs. C. Jayasree Sarathy, for the Petitioner : Vilas Afzal Purkar, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mrs. T. Meena Kumari, J. :
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders dt. 21st Nov., 2001, passed in IA No. 1138 of 2001, in RC No. 108 of 1999 by the Fourth Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
The brief facts of the case as stated in IA. No. 1138 of 2001 are that the petitioners herein filed a petition to summon the P&L a/c for the year ending 31st March, 1996, the balance sheet as on 31st March, 1996, and 31st day of March, 1998, of the first respondent firm and also the documents showing the computation of total income and acknowledgment of Sri Syed Kaleemuddin, partner, of Modern New Enterprises, for the assessment year commencing on 1st day of April, 1995.
The petitioners herein submit that they filed an application for certified copies of the above mentioned documents before the CIT and the said CIT declined to furnish the same on 29th Oct., 2001, on the ground that it is not in the public interest to furnish the said information. The petitioners submit that the documents for which they have made an application for certified copies are having direct bearing on the question involved in the case. It is stated in the petition before the trial Court that earlier they filed an IA calling for the documents mentioned above and the trial Court dismissed the said IA on 5th Sept., 2001, observing that the petitioner can obtain certified copies of the income-tax returns for the relevant period and declined to issue summons to call for the original records. Questioning the said refusal order of the CIT for issuing certified copies of the documents mentioned above, the petitioner herein filed the IA No. 1138 of 2001 before the Fourth Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad, to summon the documents mentioned above. The trial Court dismissed the said IA on the ground that the Court cannot summon those documents once the CIT declined to provide those documents on the ground of public interest and also on the ground that both the parties had adduced sufficient evidence.
Aggrieved by the said impugned order dt. 21st Nov., 2001, of the Fourth Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad, the present revision petition has been filed. Heard both sides.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court has every power to summon the documents if any authority has refused to grant certified copies of the documents and the lower Court grossly erred in dismissing the said IA on the ground that the Court cannot summon the documents if the CIT refused to issue certified copies as there is no public interest under s. 138 of the IT Act, 1961. The said section is extracted for ready reference : “138. Disclosure of information respecting assessees.—(1)(a) The Board or any other IT authorities specified by it by a general or special order in this behalf may furnish or cause to be furnished to,— (i) any officer, authority or body performing any functions under any law relating to the imposition of any tax, duty or cess, or to dealings in foreign exchange as defined in s. 2(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (7 of 1947) ; or (ii) such officer, authority or body performing functions under any other law as the Central Government may, if in its opinion it is necessary so to do in the public interest, specify by notification in the Official Gazette in this behalf, any such information received or obtained by any IT authority in the performance of his functions under this Act, as may, in the opinion of the Board or other IT authority, be necessary for the purpose of enabling the officer, authority or body to perform his or its functions under that law. (b) Where a person makes an application to the Chief CIT or CIT in the prescribed form for any information relating to any assessee received or obtained by any IT authorities in the performance of his functions under this Act, the Chief CIT or CIT may, if he is satisfied that it is in the public interest so to do, furnish or cause to be furnished the information asked for and his decision in this behalf shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court of law. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s. (1) or any other law for the time being in force, the Central Government may, having regard to the practices and usages customary or any other relevant factors, by order notified in the Official Gazette, direct that no information or document shall be furnished or produced by a public servant in respect of such matters relating to such class of assessees or except to such authorities as may be specified in the order.” A bare reading of s. 138(b) of the Act stipulates that the Chief CIT or CIT may furnish or cause to furnish any information asked for, if he is satisfied that it is in the public interest and his decision in that behalf shall be final and shall not be called for in any Court of law. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court did not consider the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Dagi Ram Pindi Lall & Anr. vs. Trilok Chand Jain & Ors. (1992) 102 CTR (SC) 170 : (1992) 194 ITR 228 (SC), wherein the apex Court after considering the amendments made to the said section held that finality attached to the order of the CIT under s. 138(1)(b) of the Act has no relevance to the exercise of powers by a Court to summon the production of documents in a case pending before the Court.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the assessment orders, etc., shall be admissible in evidence if those documents are produced by the assessee only and those documents have no evidentiary value if they are produced by a person other than the assessee. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tulsiram Sanganaria vs. Smt. Anni Rai (1971) 79 ITR 502 (SC).
In the abovesaid judgment in Tulsiram Sanganaria vs. Smt. Anni Rai (supra), the apex Court held that the assessment orders, etc., shall be admissible in evidence if they are produced by the assessee. In this case, the assessment order and other documents are sought to be summoned by the appellant, who is not the assessee and hence those documents even if produced have no evidentiary value. Even the trial Court observed that the information is not sought by the assessee and it is sought by another person to use the same as evidence against the assessee.
Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that he has filed a number of documents which are relevant to come to a just conclusion of the issue involved in the RC. The trial Court has also further observed that both the parties have adduced sufficient evidence, and the trial Court while observing the same has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein to summon those documents.
In view of the above observation by the trial Court that both the sides have adduced sufficient evidence, and also the fact that the trial Court has exercised its discretion in refusing to summon those documents, and also the documents sought to be produced are not by the assessee as observed by the apex Court in the case of Tulsiram Sanganaria (supra), I do not find any error on the face of the record committed by the trial Court to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.
In view of the above discussion, this revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the RC within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
[Citation : 260 ITR 337]