1967 (8) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Income-tax Act (43 of 1961), in relation to interrogatories served on a party to a suit under Order XI, Civil Procedure Code. The facts are not in dispute, that the interrogatories included one question whether the respondent to the present proceedings had shown a particular amount in his income-tax return for a particular year. The respondent declined to answer this question, claiming privil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ht to be based upon section 137(1) and (2) of the Income-tax Act (43 of 1961), and on certain observations of Mockett J. in Velayudham Pillai v. Subramania Pillai. When this matter is examined carefully, it will at once be seen that the claim of privilege on behalf of a party to a litigation, in this form, is erroneous and proceeds on a misconception. Section 137(1) is a protection to public serva....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wamy Reddy J. observed in Sivagami Achi v. Ramanathan Chettiar that section 137 did not create an obligation, privilege or right. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner brings it to my notice that in the latest Income-tax Act, section 137 is altogether omitted. However that might be, the position in law is clear, and this question can be asked of the respondent with perfect validity. T....