Skip to content


Noone Varadarajan Chetty Vs. Vutukuri Kanakiah - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1939)1MLJ791
AppellantNoone Varadarajan Chetty
RespondentVutukuri Kanakiah
Excerpt:
- .....in that section. section 54 of the income-tax act lays a prohibition on the court; it does not confer any exemption on the income-tax officer.3. there is no other provision of law under which secondary evidence would be admissible.4. this petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Burn, J.

1. In my opinion the decision of the learned District Judge is correct.

2. Secondary evidence of the contents of the Income-tax return is admissible, according to the contention of earned Counsel for the petitioner, under Section 65(a) of the Evidence Act. I am however unable to agree that the Income-tax Officer is 'not subject to the process of the Court'. On the contrary he is subject to every process of the Court, but under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, the Court cannot require him to produce before it any of the documents mentioned in that section. Section 54 of the Income-tax Act lays a prohibition on the Court; it does not confer any exemption on the Income-tax Officer.

3. There is no other provision of law under which secondary evidence would be admissible.

4. This petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //