JUDGMENT
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.
1. This petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax challenging the order made on August 26, 1972, by the learned Subordinate Judge rejecting the claim of the petitioner for production of records pertaining to the years 1962-63 and 1963-64. The claim of privilege of the Department pertaining to other years was upheld by the impugned order and that part of the order is not under challenge in this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a Full Bench decision of this court dated December 14, 1973, on reference made in Suit No. 64 of 1969 in Trilok Chand Jain v. Dagi Ram Pindi Lall [1974] 95 ITR 34, contends that the claim of privilege of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Income-tax, pertaining to the years 1962-63 and 1963-64, was liable to be allowed by the learned trial court. The Full Bench, while considering the position of law prior to 1964, considered the question relating to the four situations incorporated in the decision and sustained the claim of privilege by the Income-tax Department in each of the said situations. The Full Bench had also considered the position of law relating to privilege after the year 1964 and upheld the claim of privilege of the Department in all the situations incorporated in the decision. The decision of the Full Bench was challenged by Dagi Ram Pindi Lall before the Supreme Court only to the limited extent in relation to the position of law relating to privilege after 1964 where the documents, records, etc., were filed by the assessed or a third party after April, 1964, in respect of the assessment years 1964-65 onwards. Messrs. Dagi Ram Pindi Lall and another were successful in that limited challenge and, only to that extent, the Full Bench decision was reversed by the Supreme Court in the case of Dagi Ram Pindi Lall v. Trilok Chand Jain [1992] 194 ITR 228. On the other question decided by the Full Bench, the Supreme Court did not express any opinion and as such, the legal position as enunciated by the Full Bench, except to the limited extent reversed by the Supreme Court, remains the law applicable in respect of a claim of privilege. Applying the principles of law laid down by the Full Bench, the impugned order rejecting the claim of privilege pertaining to the production of record for the years 1962-63 and 1963-64 has to be set aside and the claim of the petitioner Commissioner of Income-tax to be sustained.
2. For the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The parties are left to bear their own costs.