Power to require production does not include power to retain books, but good faith statutory protection can defeat mandamus.

A statutory power to require production of books did not, by itself, include an implied power to retain them after inspection; sections 23(2) and 37 of the Indian Income-tax Act were limited to compelling production, so the books could not lawfully be detained once shown. However, the Court held that section 67 protected the Income-tax Officer because he acted under a bona fide belief that the Act authorised retention. Mandamus was therefore refused, although the detention itself was unauthorised.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Income-tax Officer had power under the Indian Income-tax Act to retain books of account produced in response to notice under section 23(2) or summoned under section 37. (ii) Whether the Income-tax Officer's detention of the books was protected by section 67 of the Indian Income-tax Act so as to bar mandamus.

Issue (i): Whether the Income-tax Officer had power under the Indian Income-tax Act to retain books of account produced in response to notice under section 23(2) or summoned under section 37.

Analysis: The notice under section 23(2) required production of evidence relied upon by the assessee. The word "produce" was construed in its ordinary sense as bringing forward, showing or exhibiting a document, and not as parting with possession of it. The power to call for production did not, by itself, carry an implied power to detain the books after they were shown. Section 37 also conferred only the power to compel production and did not authorise retention of the books once produced.

Conclusion: The Income-tax Officer had no power under sections 23(2) and 37 to retain the books after production.

Issue (ii): Whether the Income-tax Officer's detention of the books was protected by section 67 of the Indian Income-tax Act so as to bar mandamus.

Analysis: Although the detention was held to be unauthorised, the protection of section 67 applied to acts done in good faith under the Act. On the materials before the Court, the Income-tax Officer was acting under a bona fide belief that the Act empowered him to retain the books. The Court therefore treated the detention as an act done in good faith, leaving the petitioner to pursue other remedies if the books continued to be withheld after the judgment.

Conclusion: The Income-tax Officer was protected by section 67, and mandamus was not granted.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed because, although the retention of the books was not authorised by the Act, the Income-tax Officer was found to have acted in good faith and was therefore shielded from the writ sought by the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory power to require production of documents does not impliedly include a power to retain them after production, but relief by mandamus may still be refused where the impugned act was done in good faith and is protected by a statutory immunity.

---