Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.62 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 12A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 133A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
State Of Jammu And Kashmir vs Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad on 6 May, 1966
Therefore, cross-examination in the above mentioned case was not allowed
as it was not required in the facts and circumstances of the case because the
petitioner was found to be pursuing its case on the basis of a certificate
which, after inquiry from the relevant party, was found to be fake. Under
these set of circumstances, cross-examination of the person before whom the
certificate was produced, would have not served any purpose. However, in
this case also, Hon'ble Court followed decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad. This
case has been discussed in detail in the preceding paragraph. In fact, as
stated in the preceding paragraph, the ratio of this judgment gives
opportunity of cross-examination of the caretaker to the appellant.
Section 13 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S. Nath International Sales And ... vs Union Of India, And Others on 17 January, 1992
In fact, facts of that particular case (Nath International Sales
and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.) did not require opportunity of cross-
Section 12AA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Jammu And Kashmir Commission Of Inquiry Act, 1962
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Eastern Commercial Enterprises on 21 December, 1993
22.13 In view of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, l am of the
considered view that the AO was not right in holding that cross-examination
was not to be given in this case. I am in agreement with the submission of the
appellant that in view of various judicial rulings, the AO was duty bound to
13
give opportunity of cross- examination of the caretaker to the appellant.
Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram [125 ITR 713] has held
that if any statement of a third party is to be used against the assesses, an
opportunity should be given to him to cross examine the third party before
any inference can be drawn from the statement. On page 720, Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that "it is true that the proceedings under the
Income Tax Law are not governed by strict rules of evidence and therefore, it
may be said that even without calling the manager of the bank to prove this
letter, it could be taken into account as evidence. But before the I.T.
Authorities could rely upon it, they were bound to produce it before the
appellant so that the appellant could controvert the statements contained in it
by asking for an opportunity to cross examine the manager of the bank with
reference to the statements made by him . Similarly, in the case of CIT v.
Eastern Commercial Enterprises [210 ITR 103 (Cal)], Hon'ble H.C. held that
the assessee must be given an opportunity to cross examine the witness. In
this case, the AO had relied upon a statement of Shri Ram Sevak Sukla while
making the addition. H.C. held that the AO ought to have given an
opportunity to the appellant to cross examine Shri Sukla before making an
addition. Further, Supreme Court in the case of C. Vasantlal & Co. [45 ITR
206] has held that the AO can collect material to facilitate the asst. However,
if he desires to use the material so collected, the appellant must be informed
of the material collected and should be given an opportunity of explaining it.
Similar view has been taken in the following decisions -