| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1974 SLG 403 1974 SLD 403 (1974) 93 ITR 36 |
Calcutta High Court
MATTER No. 456 OF 1972 MARCH 5, 1973
GHOSH, J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MATTER No. 456 OF 1972 MARCH 5, 1973
GHOSH, J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Sarju Prosad Sharma
v.
Income Tax Officer
Law:
Section:
Section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Discovery, production of evidence, power regarding - Whether a witness has no right to be represented in a proceeding by a lawyer or an authorised representative - Held, yes - Whether, however, an assessee has right to be represented by authorised representative at assessment proceedings including examination of witness under section 131 - Held, yes FACTS A summon under section 131 was issued calling upon 'S' to attend personally at the office of the ITO to give evidence and to produce either personally or through an authorised representative the books of account and other documents specified on the reverse of the said summons. Pursuant to the said notice, 'S', the witness named in the said summons, duly attended. Trouble arose when the authorised representative of the assessee partnership firm sought to interpret the questions and answers which were put from English to Hindi and from Hindi to English, respectively. The case of the respondent, ITO was that the said authorised representative was not properly interpreting and as such he refused to allow him to act as the interpreter. Thereafter, the said Income-tax Officer served a notice upon the said 'S' informing him that he had decided not to allow the authorised representative of the assessee to be present as authorised representative at the examination of the 'S' or to act even as an interpreter. On writ : HELD In the instant case, the firm, was the assessee. The said firm was dissolved and any of the partners might be fastened with the liability of the dissolved firm. 'S' was a partner of the firm when in existence, but the aforesaid summons was not served upon 'S' as an assessee but only as a witness. In the premises, 'S' had no right to be represented in the said examination by an authorised representative. Powers of the ITO to direct appearance of witnesses or production of books by them or through their authorised representatives have been laid down in section 131. The said powers, are co-terminous with the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A witness has no right to be represented in a proceeding by a lawyer or an authorised…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492