What did the High Court hold?

The Court directed the respondent to provide notarized copies of the income tax returns to the petitioner or their counsel to avoid controversy and prejudice. This was done as the respondent admitted the accuracy of the returns already produced.

The petitioner sought to have the respondent produce income tax returns and summon the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The respondent was willing to provide photostat copies, but the petitioner argued these were unreliable.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the admissibility and reliability of photostat copies of income tax returns in a legal proceeding, and whether original or notarized copies should be produced.

Smt. Soumya vs Mr. Santosh Guttedar | Karnataka High Court 2013

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

WRIT PETITION NO.46984/2012 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN :

Smt.Soumya Aged 28 years D/o.V.Aswath r/at.No.556, 3rd Main Road BEML Layout, 5th Stage Rajarajeshwari Nagar Bangalore-98

.. PETITIONER

(By Smt.Pramila, Senior Counsel for Pramila Associates)

AND :

Santosh Guttedar Aged 32 years s/o.Subhash Guttedar r/at.2-907/31, Gubbi Colony Sedam Road Gulbarga-585 103

.. RESPONDENT

(By Sri Shivashankar Gogi, Adv.,)

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 19.10.2012 passed on I.A.No.VIII filed U/O.16 Rules 1 and 6 r/w.Section 151 of CPC vide Annexure-E, in MC.2592/2007 c/w. MC.357/2009 on the file of the V

- 2 -

Addl.Prl.Judge, Prl.Family Court, Bangalore by allowing application.

This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing in B-Group, this day the Court made the following:-

O R D E R

Petitioner has sought quashing the order dated 19.10.2012 vide Annexure-E, passed on I.A.No.8 filed by the petitioner herein before the Court below under Order XVI Rules 1 and 6 of CPC, in M.C.No.2592/2007 c/w. 357/2009.

The records reveal that during the pendency of the matter before the Court below, the petitioner herein prayed for a direction to the respondent herein to produce income tax returns relating to the respondent and to summon the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Gulbarga for production.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is prepared to produce photostat

- 3 -

copies of income tax returns; since the photostat copies of income tax returns are already on record, there is no need to furnish income tax returns once again.

Smt.Pramila Nesargi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that photostat copies cannot be relied upon and therefore, the income tax returns as prayed for in the application be produced.

In order to avoid any controversy in the matter, this Court proposes to direct the respondent to provide income tax returns as prayed which are duly notarized, to the petitioner or to the counsel appearing for the petitioner before the Court below. By such procedure, no prejudice will be caused to any other parties, inasmuch as the respondent himself is admitting that income tax returns produced by him are true and correct.

- 4 -

With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- JUDGE

*ck/-

SMT. SOUMYA vs. MR. SANTOSH GUTTEDAR

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments