NOONE VARADARAJAN CHETTY Vs. VUTUKURI KANAKIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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