Gold Enterprises and Property Developers vs P. Satish Pai

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Given the circumstances of the case, notice to the respondent is dispensed with and the petition is disposed of in order to save time apart and further inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent.

The circumstances of the case are that the present petitioner is the respondent in person in a suit for recovery of money. The claim of the plaintiff is that there is a loan in favour of the petitioner in a sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore), which has grown over time and is now at Rs. 2,20,00,000/- and continues to grow. Taking into account the interest that accrues during the course of trial, the petitioner has resisted the suit and in the course of trial, the plaintiff who was examined as PW-1 was questioned as to whether he had disclosed the source of income from which he has allegedly lent the money under the Income tax Act. The plaintiff having answered in the affirmative, he was further asked whether he can furnish the particulars of the returns filed, to which the plaintiff is said to have answered in the affirmative, but with a rider that the income tax returns are being assessed and it is possible for him to produce the particulars at a later point of time. But he was not sure as to when. It is in this circumstance, that in order to prove that the plaintiff has come to court with a false case and to demonstrate that there is no such income disclosed by the respondent, the present petitioner sought for summoning of the document from the income tax authorities. The court below however has rejected the application while referring to a decision of the Madras High Court reported in the case of Nagammai Achi Vs. Alamelu Achi, , where the provisions of the Act as it stood in the year 1957, has been addressed and on the basis of the same, the application was been rejected.

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner brings to the attention of this Court the changed legal position with reference to the case as discussed and pointed out in the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Dagi Ram Pindi Lall and another Vs. Trilok Chand Jain and others, wherein a similar controversy also having been raised in the said petition, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has taken note of the changed legal position with particular reference to Section- 137 of the Income tax Act, 1961 and has pronounced that-

"After the repeal of Section- 137 of the Act by Finance Act 5 of 1.964, there is no longer any impediment left in the way of a court to summon the production of documents filed by an assessee before the Income tax authorities after April 1, 1964 relating to assessment proceedings for 1964-65 onwards. The finality attached to an order of the Commissioner under Section- 138(1)(b) has no relevance to the exercise of powers by a court to summon the production of documents in a case pending before the Court."

In that view of the matter, the court below was not justified in placing reliance on repealed provisions of law in support of its opinion. Hence, in the interest of justice it is necessary for the court below to reconsider the application with regard to the changed position of law and to pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set-aside. The matter is referred to the trial court for reconsideration of I.A. No. 5/2014.