Skip to content


Noone Varadarajan Chetty Vs. Vutukuri Kanakiah. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Case Number A. No. 175 of 1937 in O.S. No. 30 of 1937
Reported inAIR1939Mad546; [1939]7ITR331(Mad)
AppellantNoone Varadarajan Chetty
RespondentVutukuri Kanakiah.
Excerpt:
- .....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.there is no other provision of law under which secondary evidence would be admissible.this petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.petition dismissed.
Judgment:

BURN, J. - In my opinion the decision of the learned District Judge is correct.

Secondary evidence of the contents of the Income-tax return is admissible, according to the contention of learned 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 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.

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

This petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.

Petition dismissed.


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