Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Pentapati Venkataramana And Ors. vs Pentapati Varahalu And Ors. on 22 September, 1938
In the earliest of the decisions, namely, Venkataramana v. Varahalu, AIR 1940 Mad 308 (D), (Varadachariar and Pandrang Row JJ.), the question for decision was whether the Court was precluded from admitting in evidence a certified copy which had been given to one of the partners by the Income-tax Authorities even when such statement was otherwise relevant under the provisions of the Evidence Act.
Mythili Ammal vs Janaki Ammal And Anr. on 1 September, 1939
However, they held that the document in question was admissible in evidence. It was a copy obtained by one of the members of the firm. That decision is therefore authority for the position that, notwithstanding Section 54, declaring such documents to be confidential, it was open to the assessee himself to make use of them as evidence. But, in a later decision reported in Mythili Ammal v. Janaki Ammal, AIR 1940 Mad 161 (E) (Burn and Stodart JJ.) where
one of the parties to the suit filed certified copies,
of the income-tax returns made by the other party,
the learned Judges held that they could not be put
into Court since such returns were confidential. They
Observed:
Emperor vs Osman Chotani on 15 April, 1942
The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Emperor v. Osman Chotani, AIR 1942 Bom 289 (A), in support of his contention. That Was a case where an investigating police officer served a summons on the Income-tax Commissioner requiring him to produce certain documents lodged by the accused in connection with his return for income-tax. The Commissioner of Income-tax declined to produce the documents in question, considering himself precluded from doing so by the provisions of Section 54 of the Income-tax Act.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Katikineni Venkata Gopala Narasimha ... vs Chitluri Venkataramayya on 30 April, 1940
2. These decisions were considered by a Full Bench in Venkata Gopala Narasimha Ramarao v. Venkataramayya, AIR 1940 Mad 768 (F). Leach C. J. who delivered the opinion of the Full Bench, observed:
Suraj Narain vs Seth Jhabhu Lal And Others. on 28 January, 1944
The learned counsel for the petitioner also drew my attention to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Suraj Narain v. Jhabbu Lal, AIR 1944 All 114 (B), and the decision of the Rangoon, High Court in Ma Hla Mra Khine v. Ma Hla Kra Pru, AIR 1938 Rang 276 (C), but it is unnecessary to canvass the decisions of other High Courts when there are decisions of our own High Court which throw sufficient light on this matter.
C. Velayudham Pillai vs S.C. Subramania Pillai on 30 January, 1941
in Velayudham v. Subramania, AIR 1941 Mad 709 (G), where the lower Court ordered the defendant in a suit to apply for a certified copy of his income-tax returns and profit and loss statements submitted by him to the Income-tax Officer and produce them into Court at the plaintiff's cost, The learned Judge was of opinion that the Court is prohibited from ordering a defendant to produce his original income-tax returns equally as it cannot order the income-tax officers themselves to produce them, and to direct that a litigant should produce a certified copy of his return would render Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, in some respects a dead letter. I respectfully agree with that view.
1