Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the civil court was justified in directing production of the defendant's income-tax and wealth-tax returns for the period after 1 April 1964 and whether the revisional court should interfere with that order.
Analysis: After deletion of section 137 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from 1 April 1964, and in the absence of any notification under section 138(2), there was no statutory bar preventing a civil court from summoning income-tax records for a pending suit. The returns for the relevant period were found to be material to determine the parties' financial position and the disputed ownership of the suit properties. In revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, interference is warranted only where the impugned order causes failure of justice or irreparable injury, and no such prejudice was shown.
Conclusion: The civil court had jurisdiction to require production of the post-1 April 1964 income-tax and wealth-tax returns, and the revisional court declined to interfere.
Ratio Decidendi: Following repeal of the statutory privilege, a civil court may summon income-tax records relevant to the issues in a pending suit, and revisional interference is not justified absent jurisdictional error or resulting failure of justice.