TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1961 (6) TMI 27
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... entitled to get these documents in view of the provision of section 22 read with section 2(11) of the Income-tax Act. Accordingly the Income-tax Officer was directed to inspect the documents which were directed to be produced by the Enforcement Directorate on May 3, 1961, and then to inform the court which documents in particular the Income-tax Officer wanted for the purpose of income-tax assessment. It is against this order that the Income-tax Officer and the Union of India represented by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) have moved this revisional application. Mr. E. Meyer appearing for the petitioners has urged that the Income-tax Officer has the power of a civil court in respect of discovery and inspection of documents and compelling the production of books of account and other documents [vide section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act] and that the Income-tax Officer in exercise of his power as a civil court is entitled to issue a letter of request under Order XIII, rule 10, of the Civil Procedure Code, and that the court to which such a letter of request is issued is not entitled to examine the validity of the requisition but is bound to comply with it. In this connection M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Central) Circle No. VII, and that therefore, the requisition was without jurisdiction. As to this point, however, it appears from the affidavit in reply by the petitioners that although assessment for the assessment year 1959-60 had been completed in respect of Sohan Lal Sethia and Sons Private Ltd. and Sohan Lal Sethia, the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1960-61 in respect of the firm Sohan Lal Sethia and Sons Private Ltd., was pending on May 6, 1960. According to Mr. E. Meyer the general notice under section 22(1) of the Income-tax Act had been issued before May 6, 1960, and a specific notice on the party in question under section 22(2) of the Income-tax Act was also issued on May 6, 1960, before the letter of request under Order XIII, rule 10, of the Civil Procedure Code was issued on the Chief Presidency Magistrate. This statement made in the affidavit in reply was not controverted, and it must, therefore, be held that proceedings for assessment were pending before the Income-tax Officer in question and, therefore, he had jurisdiction to make a letter of request for the documents under Order XIII, rule 10, of the Civil Procedure Code. There can be no doubt tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e objection on this score of inadmissibility but the objection on other legal grounds may be pressed by the party affected, that is Sohan Lal Sethia, before the income-tax authority or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court, but it is not the function of the court on which requestion has been made to enter into the question of admissibility or other legal questions which may be raised by the party concerned. It is not for the Chief Presidency Magistrate or for us to decide at this stage whether in view of the settlement made between the parties on January 27, 1959, the income-tax authority could legally re-open the assessment for the years 1940-41 to 1958-59. The next point urged by Mr. Dutta is that by the terms of Order XIII rule 10(1), requisition may be made from any other court of the record of any suit or proceeding and that it cannot be said that there was or is any proceeding before the Chief Presidency Magistrate who merely issued a search warrant under the provisions of section 19(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, even though the magistrate issued the search warrant has some control over the ultimate disposal of the documents and account papers seized. B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a judicial act like the issue of a search warrant under section 96 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, the proceeding in connection with the issue of a search warrant must be considered to be a judicial proceeding. Further, it may be pointed out that Order XIII, rule 10(1) of the Civil Procedure Code does not refer to a judicial proceeding. It refers to a suit or proceeding. Even if the proceeding in connection with the issue of a search warrant under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act be considered a non-judicial proceeding on the part of the Magistrate, such a non-judicial proceeding would still be within the scope of Order XIII, rule 10(1), of the Civil Procedure Code. In the circumstances, we cannot accept the contention of Mr. Dutta that as there was no proceeding before the Chief Presidency Magistrate the requisition under Order XIII, rule 10, of the Civil Procedure Code made by the Income-tax Officer would not be a valid requisition. That being so, we hold that the order of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate dated April 26, 1961, seeking to restrict the documents which may be sent to the Income-tax Officer on the requisition, was not a legal order and the or....