HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Charu Chandra Kundu v. Gurupada Ghosh
Civil Appeal No. 206 of 1959
[1962] 2 SCR 833 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: section 54 · Indian Evidence Act, 1872: section 65 discussed but not decided
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by J. C. Shah, J. · S. K. Das, J. · M. Hidayatullah, J. · J. C. Shah, J.
Assessment years: 1949-50
01 · Facts of the case
Gurupada Ghosh sued Charu Chandra Kundu for the balance of a Rs.30,000 loan. Kundu pleaded repayment and sought a summons requiring the Commissioner of Income-tax to produce a statement allegedly made by Ghosh during Kundu’s assessment for 1949-50. The Commissioner objected under section 54. Kundu argued that the bar covered only an assessee’s own evidence and, alternatively, that he could waive the protection. The trial court and Calcutta High Court rejected compulsory production (SCR pp.833-836; PDF pp.1-4).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Section 54 comprehensively treated statements, returns, accounts, documents, evidence and assessment records as confidential, barred courts from requiring public servants to produce them or testify about them, and penalised unauthorised disclosure. The alleged statement did not fall within the statutory exceptions. The Court held that the bar was absolute and contained no express or implied waiver exception. Authorities about admissibility of certified copies did not answer whether a court could compel departmental production of the original record, and their correctness was left open (SCR pp.836-838; PDF pp.4-6).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The Court upheld the refusal to compel production of the departmental record and dismissed the appeal (SCR p.838; PDF p.6).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
The respondent succeeded on the historical confidentiality issue. No assessment, tax liability or final civil-debt merits were determined (SCR pp.837-838; PDF pp.5-6).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: separate compelled disclosure by tax officials from voluntary use of an assessee-held copy. Charu Chandra establishes an absolute historical bar for the former under section 54, while expressly reserving certified-copy admissibility. Any present dispute requires the current statutory and evidentiary regime to be checked afresh (based on SCR pp.836-838; PDF pp.4-6).
Source: Primary judgment: reviewPoint
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 6-page SCR source asset read in page-preserving text and visually inspected. Adjacent-report boundaries, where present, were distinguished from the target judgment.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and six-page count match catalogue asset 1962_2_833_838; every page was read and visually inspected.
- The source verifies Civil Appeal No. 206 of 1959, the stated bench, issue, reasoning and operative result.
- No exact source-hash, asset-ID, SCR-citation, docket or same-judgment match was found in the published corpus or reviewed release archive.
Statutory scope
The ruling construes the confidentiality and court-production bar in section 54 of the repealed Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It does not state the current disclosure, evidence or confidentiality rule under later enactments.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-11. Later judicial treatment and current statutory applicability have not been comprehensively checked; no current-law or citator clearance is represented.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.