O.C.J. Suit No. 1661 of 1945. Case: Official Assignee of Bombay Vs Mustafa Murtaza and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | O.C.J. Suit No. 1661 of 1945 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: M.V. Desai and S.A. Desai, Advs. and For Respondents: A.A. Peerbhoy and V.N. Chhatrapati, Advs., S.H. Lulla and M.M. Jhaveri, Advs. and K.M. Vakeel and M.S. Vakeel, Advs. |
| Judges | Bhagwati, J. |
| Issue | Income Tax Act, 1922 - Section 54 |
| Citation | AIR 1950 Bom 264, (1950) 52 BomLR 402, [1950] 18 ITR 751 (Bom) |
| Judgement Date | September 15, 1949 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Order:
Bhagwati, J.
-
According to the evidence given by this witness, there are certain books which have come into his possession, as the Income-tax Officer, he having received them from the Anti-Corruption Branch, C.I.D., Bombay, as against his receipt dated 10th September 1949. Four books being items NOS. 2, 9, 14 and 15 in that receipt are sought to be called for from him as being relevant for the purpose of the inquiry before me. They are rough cash books of defendant 1, for several periods beginning with 5th November 1945, and ending with 17th July 1949. It is alleged by the plaintiff that there are in these books entries with regard to the receipt of rents of the Foras Road property crediting the same to defendant 1 himself even though according to the case as put forward here, the Foras Road property was gold by defendant 1 to defendant 3 by the document dated 15th May 1945. There is no doubt about the relevancy of the entries in these books. The only question that arises foe my consideration is whether the witness, who is the Income-tax Officer concerned in the assessment of defendant 1 and who is in possession, power or custody of these books, can be called upon to produce these books in Court by reason of the provisions of Section 54, Income-tax Act, 1922.
-
A real controversy has ranged round this question. Mr. Peerbhoy for defendant 1 was 1950 B/34 & 35 frank enough to concede that so far as his client was concerned, he would, so far as it lay within his power, call upon the income-tax authorities to make these books available for the purpose of giving inspection of the relevant entries therefrom to the other side, under proper safeguards adopted in that behalf by the income-tax authorities. He had no objection to the disclosure of the relevant entries therefrom to the other side and inspection thereof by them. If, however, the matter was pressed to the production of these books in Court notwithstanding the provisions of Section 54, Income-tax Act, he urged that having regard to the two cases, one of our High Court reported in Emperor v. Osman Chotani [1942]10ITR429(Bom), and the other of the Madras High Court reported in M. Rangaswami Naicker v. M. Raju Naicker [1941]9ITR693(Mad), the witness, as the Income-tax Officer concerned with this assessment, could not be called upon to produce the same in Court. He particularly relied upon the judgment of Gentle J. in the Madras case above referred to where the books of account of the partnership had been lodged with the Income-tax Officer and a partner of the partnership required the production of these books for the purpose of taking...
To continue reading
Request your trial