Civil court summons for income-tax records is not barred by privilege claims; certified copies may suffice for Sub-Registrar documents.

A civil court may call for relevant income-tax records from the tax department when they are material to the dispute, and section 138(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act does not by itself bar such summons. Any claim of privilege under the Indian Evidence Act must be examined by the court when specifically raised, and the mere custody of records with the revenue authorities is not enough to refuse production. By contrast, documents available from the Sub-Registrar's office need not be compulsorily summoned where certified copies can be obtained and filed by the party.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether income-tax records sought by a party in civil proceedings could be treated as privileged and refused to be summoned from the income-tax authorities. (ii) Whether the trial court was justified in refusing to summon documents from the office of the Sub-Registrar on the ground that certified copies could be obtained by the party.

Issue (i): Whether income-tax records sought by a party in civil proceedings could be treated as privileged and refused to be summoned from the income-tax authorities.

Analysis: The jurisdiction of a civil court to call for production of relevant documents from a custodian is not taken away merely because the documents are in the custody of the income-tax department. Section 138(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 deals with disclosure of information by the Commissioner in the public interest on an application made to him and does not bar a court from summoning relevant records. The objection based on sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 must be decided by the court when privilege is specifically claimed, and the income-tax authorities had not themselves asserted such privilege. The earlier restraint on calling for such records had also been removed by the repeal of the 1922 Act and omission of section 137 of the 1961 Act, subject to the court first satisfying itself about relevance.

Conclusion: The refusal to summon the income-tax records was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the trial court was justified in refusing to summon documents from the office of the Sub-Registrar on the ground that certified copies could be obtained by the party.

Analysis: The documents from the Sub-Registrar's office were not shown to require coercive summoning where certified copies were available to the party. No legal infirmity was shown in the trial court's view that the petitioner could obtain and file certified copies instead of insisting on summons.

Conclusion: The refusal to interfere with the direction regarding Sub-Registrar documents was upheld against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the extent of the income-tax records, while the remainder of the order was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A civil court may summon relevant records from the income-tax authorities, and objections based on secrecy or privilege under the Evidence Act must be judicially determined by the court when properly raised; section 138(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act does not bar such summons.

---