Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. A further argument advanced by Mr. Ranganathan for the department, is that Under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act also, the repeal of the old Act cannot affect any right or privilege which has accrued under the repealed Act. The argument is that the prohibition against disclosure is a right or privilege which has been secured by the assessee under the provisions of the repealed Act and that this right cannot be affected by the repeal of the 1922 Act.

8. The object in prohibiting the disclosure of matters contained in the records of assessment is to encourage an assessee to place all the facts before the department, even confidential matters, for the purpose of assessment. Any documents or material so furnished by the assessee in his assessment proceedings are prohibited from being availed of by third parties to the assessment; but that is solely with a view to enable a proper assessment to be made by the department. If such a protection against the disclosure of statements or other confidential matter furnished by the assessee were no 6 ganted, the object of the section would be frustrated. In Shama Rao v. Motiram, 1934-2 ITS. 436: (AIR 1934 Nag 181) it was held that the intention underlying Section 54 is to encourage an assessee to make a full and true disclosure of all relevant facts within his knowledge knowing that any statement made by him will not subsequently be used against him. It was also held that it was open to the assessee to object to answering interrogatories on statements made by him in such proceedings on the ground that they are privileged. The Supreme Court has also held in Charu Chandra v. Gurupada Ghosh, that the prohibition imposed against the disclosure by Section 54 is an absolute one and its operation is not obliterated by any waiver by the assessee. In Rama Rao v. Venkataramanayya 1940-8 ITR 450: (AIR 1940 Mad 768) a Full Bench of this court had to examine whether a record of assessment is a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act, certified copies of which would be admissible Under Section 65(c). This decision only went to the extent of examining the right of a person who is concerned with the assessment to obtain copies of the document relevant to his assessment and to the admissibility of such document in evidence under the Evidence Act. In another Bench decision of this Court Muniammal v. 3rd Addl. Income-tax Officer, Ramachandra Iyer J. as he then was, observed thus: