Section 137 — Disclosure of Information Prohibited (Omitted)
Case Laws & Commentary - Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) - bharattax.co Treatise
Provision: Section 137 — OMITTED. In its original form it imposed a duty of secrecy on income-tax particulars and prohibited courts from requiring their disclosure.
Chapter / Part: Chapter XIII, Part D — Disclosure of information.
Omitted: By the Finance Act, 1964, with effect from 1 April 1964.
FA 2026 status: Not affected by the Finance Act, 2026 (the section was already off the statute book).
Nature: Historic / omitted. The secrecy regime it embodied was replaced by the controlled-disclosure regime of section 138.
A. SECTION COMMENTARY
Status — omitted provision (the old secrecy rule)
Section 137, in its original form, was the secrecy provision of the Act: it cast a duty of confidentiality on all particulars contained in returns, accounts, documents and evidence furnished in the course of income-tax proceedings, and it barred courts from requiring any public servant to produce or disclose such particulars. It was the direct descendant of the secrecy provisions of the 1922 Act. The Finance Act, 1964 omitted section 137 with effect from 1 April 1964, replacing the rigid prohibition with the more nuanced, controlled-disclosure scheme now found in section 138.
From secrecy to controlled disclosure
The policy shift effected by the omission of section 137 and the strengthening of section 138 was deliberate: instead of an absolute embargo on disclosure, the law moved to a regime in which the Board (and authorities specified by it) may furnish information from the record to other authorities and bodies for specified public purposes, and in which a person may apply to the Commissioner for information about an assessee, the Commissioner deciding, in his discretion and subject to the public interest, whether and what to disclose. The result is that the confidentiality of tax information is now protected not by section 137 but by the structure of section 138 read with the privacy exemption in the Right to Information Act, 2005 (section 8(1)(j)), as the courts have recognised.
B. STATUTORY POSITION (verbatim text)
Reproduced below is the entry for section 137 as it appears in the bare Act.
137. [Omitted by the Finance Act, 1964, w.e.f. 1-4-1964.]
Note: As an omitted provision, section 137 has no current operation. The controlling authorities are those governing its successor regime, section 138, collected under that section.
C. AUTHORITIES
Cluster 1 — The successor confidentiality regime (cross-reference to section 138 and RTI)
The confidentiality function once performed by section 137 is now performed by section 138 read with the RTI privacy exemption; the leading authority is collected here and under section 138.
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner (2013) 1 SCC 212 (SC)
Forum / Citation: Supreme Court of India, 3 October 2012. Reported: (2013) 1 SCC 212; (2013) 351 ITR 472 (SC); JT 2012 (9) SC 585.
Held: The details disclosed in a person's income-tax returns are 'personal information' exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, unless a larger public interest is shown; tax particulars enjoy a protected, private character.
Principle: The confidentiality of tax information, once secured by section 137, is now secured by the structure of section 138 read with the RTI privacy exemption.
Relevance: Demonstrates the continuity of the confidentiality policy after the omission of section 137.
Compiled for the bharattax.co Treatise on the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026). Statutory text reproduced verbatim from the bare Act (Chapter XIII, ss. 116-138). Each authority is cited with its full parallel reporter citations as reported; Supreme Court, High Court and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) rulings are identified as such. Where a section has not been directly construed, that is stated candidly and the nearest governing authority is given. For professional reference; not legal advice.
CHAPTER XIII - INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES
Section 137 — Disclosure of Information Prohibited (Omitted)
Case Laws & Commentary - Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) - bharattax.co Treatise
Provision: Section 137 — OMITTED. In its original form it imposed a duty of secrecy on income-tax particulars and prohibited courts from requiring their disclosure.
Chapter / Part: Chapter XIII, Part D — Disclosure of information.
Omitted: By the Finance Act, 1964, with effect from 1 April 1964.
FA 2026 status: Not affected by the Finance Act, 2026 (the section was already off the statute book).
Nature: Historic / omitted. The secrecy regime it embodied was replaced by the controlled-disclosure regime of section 138.
A. SECTION COMMENTARY
Status — omitted provision (the old secrecy rule)
Section 137, in its original form, was the secrecy provision of the Act: it cast a duty of confidentiality on all particulars contained in returns, accounts, documents and evidence furnished in the course of income-tax proceedings, and it barred courts from requiring any public servant to produce or disclose such particulars. It was the direct descendant of the secrecy provisions of the 1922 Act. The Finance Act, 1964 omitted section 137 with effect from 1 April 1964, replacing the rigid prohibition with the more nuanced, controlled-disclosure scheme now found in section 138.
From secrecy to controlled disclosure
The policy shift effected by the omission of section 137 and the strengthening of section 138 was deliberate: instead of an absolute embargo on disclosure, the law moved to a regime in which the Board (and authorities specified by it) may furnish information from the record to other authorities and bodies for specified public purposes, and in which a person may apply to the Commissioner for information about an assessee, the Commissioner deciding, in his discretion and subject to the public interest, whether and what to disclose. The result is that the confidentiality of tax information is now protected not by section 137 but by the structure of section 138 read with the privacy exemption in the Right to Information Act, 2005 (section 8(1)(j)), as the courts have recognised.
B. STATUTORY POSITION (verbatim text)
Reproduced below is the entry for section 137 as it appears in the bare Act.
137. [Omitted by the Finance Act, 1964, w.e.f. 1-4-1964.]
Note: As an omitted provision, section 137 has no current operation. The controlling authorities are those governing its successor regime, section 138, collected under that section.
C. AUTHORITIES
Cluster 1 — The successor confidentiality regime (cross-reference to section 138 and RTI)
The confidentiality function once performed by section 137 is now performed by section 138 read with the RTI privacy exemption; the leading authority is collected here and under section 138.
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner (2013) 1 SCC 212 (SC)
Forum / Citation: Supreme Court of India, 3 October 2012. Reported: (2013) 1 SCC 212; (2013) 351 ITR 472 (SC); JT 2012 (9) SC 585.
Held: The details disclosed in a person's income-tax returns are 'personal information' exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, unless a larger public interest is shown; tax particulars enjoy a protected, private character.
Principle: The confidentiality of tax information, once secured by section 137, is now secured by the structure of section 138 read with the RTI privacy exemption.
Relevance: Demonstrates the continuity of the confidentiality policy after the omission of section 137.
Compiled for the bharattax.co Treatise on the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026). Statutory text reproduced verbatim from the bare Act (Chapter XIII, ss. 116-138). Each authority is cited with its full parallel reporter citations as reported; Supreme Court, High Court and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) rulings are identified as such. Where a section has not been directly construed, that is stated candidly and the nearest governing authority is given. For professional reference; not legal advice.