- (1.) This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court, dated 14-12-1973 in Suit No. 64169 (reported in 1974 Tax LR 703), delivered in a reference made by a learned single Judge for opinion of the Full Bench. The questions referred by the learned single Judge to the Full Bench revolved around the scope and effect of the provisions of Sections 54 and 59B of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the 'l922 Act') and Sections 137 and 138 of the Income-tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the '1961' Act) as amended from time to time in 1964 and 1967 in the context of the claim of privilege by the Income-tax Department for the production of the documents relating to assessment of an assessee summoned by the Civil Court. The following three questions were referred to and considered by the Full Bench: "1. What is the position of law relating to privilege prior to 1964
(2.) What is the position of law relating to privilege after 1964 and
(3.) What is the effect of the production of certified copies relating to income-tax assessment records, and how far certified copies can be admitted in evidence - The circumstances under which these questions arose, briefly put, are as follows: 2. The plaintiff, Trilok Chand Jain, instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 1, 39,722.86 against the defendants, M/ s. Dagi Ram Pindi Lall and Smt. Budh Wanti Gulati, W/ o Shri Pindi Lall Gulati, the appellants herein. During the course of pro- ceedings in the suit, when evidence was being recorded, the plaintiff obtained summons from the court requiring the Income-tax Department to produce in the court records relating to the Income-tax Assessment of the defendants, M/ s. Dagi Ram Pindi Lall, for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1971-72. The Income-tax Officer to whom the summons were issued sent the record in a sealed cover through an Inspector along with a letter, dated November 1, 1972, claiming that the said record was privileged under Section 137 of the 1961 Act. The plaintiff also applied for and obtained summons requiring the Income-tax Officer to produce the income-tax record relating to M/s. Borizeon Industrial Products (P) Ltd. and Bishamber Nath Kaul. That record was also sent by the Income-tax Officer in a sealed cover along with a letter in which it was submitted that no disclosure of information regarding income-tax pertaining to an income-tax assessee could be made. The plaintiffs, it appears, in the meanwhile filed in the court a number of certified copies of the accounts of the defendants, which he had been able to obtain from the income-tax authorities and sought permission of the Court to tender the certified copies in evidence. Arguments were addressed by the parties before the learned single Judge on the question of privilege as claimed by the Income-tax Officer. Being of the opinion that the question of privilege, as claimed by the Income-tax Officer, was important and likely to arise in the course of trial of suits in future also, a reference was made by the learned single Judge to the Full Bench. In dealing with the three questions (supra) referred to it, the Full Bench considered different situations. it considered the first question in the following four situations: - "(a) where the documents, records, etc. in respect of which privilege is claimed were filed by an assessee or a third party before April 1, 1962, with effect from which date the Indian Income-tax Act 1922, was repealed, in respect of assessment years up to and including assessment year 1961-62 in proceedings for the said assessment years taking place under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922; (b) where the documents, records, etc. were filed by an assessee or a third party after April 1, 1962, but before April 1, 1964 in respect of assessment years up to and including assessment year 1961-62 in proceedings for the said assessment years taking place under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922; (c) where the documents, records, etc. were filed by an assessee or a third party afterapril 1, 1962, but before April 1, 1964, in respect of assessment years up to and including assessment year 1961-62 in proceedings for the said assessment years taking place under the Income-tax Act, 1961; and (d) where the documents, records, etc. were filed by an assessee or a third party after April 1, 1962, but before April 1, 1964, in respect of assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64 in proceedings for the said assessment years taking place under the Income-tax Act, 1961. and sustained the claim of privilege by the Income-tax Department in each one of the situations. The Full Bench while considering the second question, dealt with the following situations:- "(a) Where the documents, records, etc. in respect of which privilege is claimed were filed by an assessee or a third party after April 1, 1964, in respect of assessment years up to and including assessment year 1961-62 in proceedings for the said assessment years taking place under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922; (b) Where the documents, records etc. were filed. by an assessee or a third party after April 1, 1964, in respect of assessment years up to and including assessment year 1961-62 in proceedings for the said assessment years taking place under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961; (c) Where the documents, records, etc. were filed by an assessee or a third partv after April 1, 1964, in respect of assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64 in proceedings for the said assessments years taking place under the Income-tax Act, 1961; and (d) Where the documents, records. etc. were filed by an assessee or a third party after April 1, 1964, in respect of assessment years 1964-65 onwards." The claim of privilege was sustained in all the above situations also. 3. Dealing with the effect of omission of Section 137 and substitution of Section 138(1)(a) and (b), the High Court opined [1974 Tax LR 703, Para 67]: ". . . that when a party to a proceeding in a Court applies for summoning any documents, records, etc. from the income-tax authorities, the Court may summon the said documents, records, etc. But on receipt of the summons, it is open to the Commissioner of Income-tax to consider the matter as provided under Section 138(1)(b), and decide whether it would be (sic) in the public interest to produce or furnish the documents, records, etc. summoned for, and submit his view to the Court in answer to the summons. In case, he is satisfied that the production, etc. would not be in the public interest, his decision is final and the Court to which the said decision is communicated cannot question the same." (Emphasis supplied) The Full Bench, however, did not express any opinion on the third question.;