For contravening provisions of section 131 of Income-tax Act (' Act ') and for failure of assessee to produce account books relating to accounting year relevant to assessment year 1982-83, ITO imposed fine of Rs. 450 under section 131(2) by his order dated 21-12-1983. In appeal, fine of Rs. 450 was confirmed by AAC by means of his appellate order dated 17-1-1985. 2. present before us is second appeal filed by assessee against AAC's order. relevant provisions of Act which come up for consideration as far as they are relevant for us are following: " (1) Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner shall, for purposes of this Act, have same powers as are vested in court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), when trying suit in respect of following matters, namely:--- (a) discovery and inspection; (b) ** ** ** (c) compelling production of books of account and other documents; (2) Without prejudice to provisions of any other law for time being in force, where person to whom summons is issued either to attend to give evidence or produce books of account or other documents at certain place and time, intentionally omits to attend or produce books of account or documents at place or time, income-tax authority may impose upon him such fine not exceeding five hundred rupees as it thinks fit, and fine so levied may be recovered in manner provided in Chapter XVII-D." Section 142(1) of Act reads as under: " (1) For purpose of making assessment under this Act, Income- tax Officer may serve on any person who has made return under section 139, or to whom notice has been issued under sub-section (2) of section 139 (whether return has been made or not) notice requiring him, on date to be therein specified,--- (i) to produce, or cause to be produced, such accounts or documents as Income-tax Officer may require, or (ii) ** ** ** Provided that--- (a) ** ** ** (b) Income-tax Officer shall not require production of any accounts relating to period more than three years prior to previous year." Section 143(2) of Act is as under: " (2) Where return has been made under section 139, and--- (a) assessment having been made under sub-section (1), assessee makes within one month from date of service of notice of demand issued i n consequence of such assessment, application to Income-tax Officer objecting to assessment, or (b) whether or not assessment has been made under sub-section (1), t h e Income-tax Officer considers it necessary or expedient to verify correctness and completeness of return by requiring presence of assessee or production of evidence in this behalf, Income-tax Officer shall serve on assessee notice requiring him, on date to be therein specified, either to attend at Income-tax Officer's office or to produce, or to cause to be there produced, any evidence on which assessee may rely in support of return:" 3. It is contention of assessee in this appeal that unless ITO exhausts powers vested with him either under section 142(1) or under section 143(2) he cannot exercise powers under section 131(1) and (2). It is further contention of assessee that powers vested in ITO under section 131 are not intended to substitute for bypassing procedure of law laid down in terms of section 143(2) or 143(1). powers vested in ITO under section 131 are to be invoked under certain set of circumstances and that too for purpose of Act. It was argued that under section 131 ITO was given same powers which Court was entitled to exercise under provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Shri Rathi, learned counsel for assessee, contended that role of Court under Code of Civil Procedure is quite different from role of ITO under Act. main difference between two being that whereas ITO under Act would act both as judge as well as investigator Court under Code of Civil Procedure would never act as investigator. However, litigants may require production of documents from public offices and other courts or other public authorities. powers to summon documents from above authorities are given to Courts under Order XIII rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. He argued that consequence of non-production of documents in possession of parties to suit is to draw adverse inference under section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 whereunder it would be presumed that had document been produced it would go against interests of party withholding production of same. In effect, Shri Rathi, learned counsel for assessee, contested jurisdiction of ITO to invoke powers under section 131 and according to him there are certain pre-conditions to invoke same and there are certain other powers to be exhausted before invoking same. On other hand, learned departmental representative contended that ITO has got even right to issue notice under section 131 only condition being that said notice should be issued only for purpose of Act. In this case section 131 notice dated 9-11-1983 was issued purposely to produce account books relevant for assessment year 1982- 83 along with bank statements and sales tax assessment order on 14-11-1983. assessee, who is registered firm, filed its income-tax return for assessment year 1982-83 along with all relevant statement of accounts on 25-8- 1983 (vide Inward No. 6479 under GIP No. 425, ITO). learned departmental representative further contended that argument advanced on other side that powers under section 142(1) and under section 143(2) should be exhausted before invoking powers under section 131 is argument without substance. 4. Thus we heard about preliminary objection of jurisdiction to issue notice under section 131 from both sides sufficiently. We are of opinion, that arguments advanced by Shri Rathi, are not acceptable to us. Order XI rules 12, 13 and 14 of Code of Civil Procedure may be cited in this connection which would provide direct answer to contention raised by Shri Rathi, learned counsel for assessee. Out of above it is enough if we quote provisions of Order XI rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure: " 14. Production of documents.---It shall be lawful for court, at any time during pendency of any suit, to order production by any party thereto, upon oath of such of documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question in such suit, as Court shall think right; and Court may deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just." We have already extracted relevant portions of section 131(1) and (2) in above paras. reading of said provisions would make it clear that only pre-condition before issuing notice under section 131 is that production of document should be for purposes of Act and apart from this pre- condition power of ITO to issue notice under section 131 is in no way fettered by any other conditions. argument that powers under section 142(1) and 142(2) should be exhausted before invoking powers under section 131 to our minds, is neither warranted by reading of section nor appeared to be essential under law. In view of all above we reject preliminary contention of Shri Rathi, learned counsel for assessee. 5. However, on merits, we do not find sufficient ground to sustain fine. We have already seen that powers were given to ITO under section 131 ' for purpose of Act '. assessee, registered firm, filed its income-tax return for assessment year 1982-83 on 25-8-1982. It is no doubt true that impugned notice under section 131 was issued on 9-11-1983. However, time given was only up to 14-11-1983. Except maintaining head office at Hyderabad assessee-firm actually was carrying on its business at Vijayawada. Summons was served on 9-11-1983 against assessee. 10-11-1983 is second Saturday and 11-11-1983 is Sunday. Thus it can be seen that only four days' time was granted for production within which there r e two public holidays. At para 4.7 of report of Working Group on Central Direct Taxes Administration, Administrative Reforms Commission, January 1968, advised all ITOs to grant seven clear days' time from date of service for compliance with directions of notice. Following is text of report of said Working Group: " Assessee to get seven clear days from date of service---It has also been represented to us that sufficient time is not given for complying with these notices. Even though between date of notice and date on which appearance is required there is time gap of more than week, date on which notice is served is, in most cases, 4 to 5 days after date mentioned in notice. This hardly gives more than day or two for assessees to comply with notice and hence causes inconvenience to them. We agree that assessee should get seven clear days from date of service of notice and for this purpose we have already suggested that Income-tax Officer should himself make out of fortnightly or weekly list of cases and send it to office besides exhibiting such list on Notice Board. If in any case, assessee fails to comply with notice for reason that seven clear days were not available to him from date of service of notice, assessee should not be liable to any proceeding for such default, such as completion of assessment under section 144 or penalty under section 271." On 16-11-1983 ITO issued notice under section 139(2) to produce or to cause to be produced accounts/documents noted on reverse of said notice on 7- 12-1983. In pursuance thereof partners attended ITO's office along with their representative and produced all accounts called for in notice. However, ITO adjourned case saying that file relating to assessment year 1982-83 is with IAC and he duly traced file of assessee-firm for assessment year 1981-82 and, therefore, ITO asked assessee and its representative to be present on 28-12-1983 with account books relevant to assessment year 1981-82. This is made clear in letter dated 26-12-1983 addressed to ITO. assessment order for assessment year 1982-83 dated 31-1-1985 was produced at page 1 of paper book which is completed under section 143(3). returned income was Rs. 93,692. Small additions were made towards excess depreciation on tools. depreciation was claimed at 25 per cent instead of 10 per cent. So also, some disallowance was made from car maintenance expenses and depreciation claimed over car. No estimation of profits was made due to alleged non-production of account books. assessed income before deduction of firm's tax was only Rs. 96,090. Under circumstances we are unable to hold that assessee either intentionally omitted to attend or produce books of account or documents at place and time directed by ITO in notice. We, therefore, cancel fine imposed. assessee gets relief of Rs. 450. appeal is allowed. *** SABOO BROTHERS v. INCOME TAX OFFICER