2020 (2) TMI 859 - HC - Benami Property

Court allows Civil Revision Petitions on document production, stresses importance of income tax returns.

The Court allowed the Civil Revision Petitions, overturning the lower court's decision on the applications for document production. Emphasizing the ... Declaration of sale deed as Benami - Seeking certified copy of ITR from the department in respect of respondent no. 2 - transfer of suit schedule property in the name of the petitioner company - grant of permanent injunction restraining respondent Nos.1 and 2 and their men from interfering with the suit schedule property - HELD THAT:- Since the examination of the said documents would go to the roots of the case, the Court below ought to have allowed the said IAs and directed respondent No.3 to produce the said documents. Apart from the same, if the said documents are produced before the Court below, no prejudice would be caused to respondent Nos.1 and 2. The judgment relied on by the Court below in RAJU SEBASTIAN, SUNIL KUMAR P.S., ANIYAN ABRAHAM VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, THE TERRITORY MANAGER (RETAIL) [2019 (9) TMI 673 - KERALA HIGH COURT] cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case under the pretext of infringement of privacy effecting Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as the issue involved in the present case is whether respondent No.2 had the financial capacity to purchase the suit property. Therefore, to decide the said issue, it is essential to produce income tax returns and bank statement of account of respondent No.2 before the Court below. If the same are produced before the Court below, the same does not result in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as they are Government documents and are accessible to others. In PENTAKOTA SURYA APPA RAO AND OTHERS VERSUS PENTAKOTA SEETHAYAMMA AND OTHERS [1975 (7) TMI 56 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], a division Bench of this Court held that income tax returns are public documents and they can be summoned by the Court. In view of the above, the order of the Court below cannot be sustainable and is liable to be set aside. Petition allowed. Issues:Petitioner seeking production of documents for a civil suit, Privacy concerns regarding income tax returns, Interpretation of privacy under Article 21, Applicability of previous judgments on the present case, Directions for expeditious disposal of the suit.Analysis:The petitioner company filed a civil suit seeking to declare certain sale deeds as benami and transfer the suit property. The company filed applications to direct the third respondent to furnish income tax returns and bank statements of the second respondent to prove lack of financial capacity. The Court below dismissed the applications citing lack of entitlement. The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing that the documents were crucial to the case, as respondent No.2's financial capacity was in question due to alleged purchase of the suit lands. The petitioner relied on a previous court decision to support their argument.Respondent's counsel contended that the pleadings did not specify the documents sought, and requesting income tax returns breached privacy rights. Respondent No.2's evidence revealed undeclared agricultural income, defended by the exemption of agricultural income from tax. However, the law mandates disclosure of agricultural income in tax returns for exemption, which was not done in this case. The petitioner's case hinged on proving the purchase of suit lands in respondent No.1's name, necessitating the production of financial documents. The Court should have allowed the applications as they were central to the case and would not prejudice the respondents.The Court found the previous judgment cited by the lower court inapplicable, as the issue was not privacy infringement but the financial capacity of respondent No.2. The Court emphasized the importance of income tax returns as public documents, summonable by the Court, based on a previous division Bench ruling. The Court set aside the lower court's order, allowing the applications for production of documents. The Court directed expeditious disposal of the suit, recalling previous directives for timely resolution of related cases.In conclusion, the Court allowed the Civil Revision Petitions, overturning the lower court's decision on the applications for document production. The Court emphasized the significance of income tax returns as public documents, crucial for determining financial capacity in legal disputes. The judgment reiterated the importance of expeditious resolution of the suit and cooperation from all parties involved, without imposing any costs.