| Case ID |
97e0e2c3-c066-48ee-8da0-9dd06ffb38f8 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-2741 of 2016 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 01, 1947 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 01, 1947 |
| Decision |
The court held that Section 54 of the Income-tax Act merely directs officials of the Income-tax Department to treat certain documents as confidential and prohibits the Court from requiring public servants to produce such documents or to give evidence about them. The direction is a guideline for officials, and the assessee has the right to waive that confidentiality and provide evidence if desired. Thus, the documents obtained by the widow of Laxminarayan were deemed admissible in evidence, leading to the decision in favor of the plaintiff, Buchibai. |
| Summary |
In the significant case of Buchibai v. Nagpur University, the Nagpur High Court addressed the complex issues surrounding the confidentiality of documents under the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically Section 54, which prohibits public servants from disclosing certain documents. The case emerged from a dispute involving the estate of Rao Bahadur D. Laxminarayan, who left a will that purported to dispose of substantial properties. The plaintiff, Buchibai, argued for her rightful share in the estate, claiming that the properties were acquired under the will of Kakolam. The court's ruling emphasized the rights of the assessee to waive confidentiality, thus allowing previously inadmissible documents to be considered. This landmark decision clarifies the balance between confidentiality in tax documents and the rights of individuals to present evidence in legal proceedings, making it a crucial reference for future cases involving similar legal principles. |
| Court |
Nagpur High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Nagpur University
|
| Judges |
Pollock, JJ.,
Sen, JJ.
|
| Lawyers |
T.L. Shevde,
M.R. Bobde,
M.D. Khandekar,
R. Kaushalendra Rao
|
| Petitioners |
Buchibai
|
| Respondents |
Nagpur University
|
| Citations |
1947 SLD 35,
(1947) 15 ITR 150
|
| Other Citations |
Rama Rao v. Venkataramayya [1940] 8 ITR 450,
Anwar Ali v. Tafozal Ahmed [1925] (AIR 1925 Rang. 84; 2 Rang. 391; 84 IC 487),
Devidatt v. Shriram Narayandas [1932] (AIR 1932 Bom. 291; 56 Bom. 324; 137 IC 381),
Gopika Raman v. Atal Singh [1929] (AIR 1929 PC 99; 56 Cal. 1003; 56 IA 119; 114 IC 561),
Promatha Nath Pramanick v. Nirode Chandra Ghose [1939] (7 ITR 570; ILR [1939] 2 Cal. 394; 43 CWN 1169; AIR 1940 Cal. 187; 188 IC 37)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961,
Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922,
Evidence Act
|
| Sections |
280,
54,
54,
74,
65
|