Case Details

Citation(s)
1969 SLG 675 1969 SLD 675 (1969) 71 ITR 269
Calcutta High Court
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1503 OF 1964 MARCH 15, 1968
R.N. DUTT AND K.K. MITRA, JJ.
A.K. Dutta and Jaharlal Roy for the Petitioner. Pankaj Kumar Ghosh, Somraj Dutta, B.L. Pal and Amiya Kr. Mukherjee for
Respondent

Jhabarmull Agarwalla

v.

Kashiram Agarwalla

Law:

Section:

Section 131 of the Income-tax Act 1961, read with rule 10 of Order XIII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Discovery, production of evidence, power regarding - Whether section 131(1) must be construed to confer on ITO all relevant powers which Civil Courts have under Code of Civil Procedure regarding production of books of account and other documents - Held, yes Whether since Order XIII, rule 10 of code confers such power on Civil Court to call for documents from other Courts, ITO too has such powers under section 131(1) - Held, yes FACTS In 1964, when the opposite party was removing 9 trunk loads of documents, the police seized them. The same day the petitioner filed a petition of complaint against opposite party and his wife, opposite party No. 2, before the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate. He examined the petitioner and then sent it to the police for enquiry and report. The police made an enquiry and submitted a report and thereafter the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate summoned opposite parties under section 424 of the Indian Penal Code. The ITO, who had been made opposite in this rule, in the meantime filed an application before the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, under section 131(1), read with Order XIII, rule 10, of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying that the seized documents be made over to him for a period of two months for his examination in connection with the assessment proceedings against opposite party. The Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate at first permitted him to inspect the documents, and, subsequently, on a further petition from the ITO, he made an order on making over the seized documents to the ITO for one month. When opposite parties appeared before the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, he transferred the case to Presidency Magistrate, for disposal. Opposite party in the meantime filed an application for reconsideration of the order making over the seized books to the ITO. When the case was transferred, the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate recorded that the transferee Court would consider this application. The petitioner thereafter obtained the rule, and further proceedings were stayed. The…
πŸ”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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