1963 (9) TMI 65

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... independent of Solomon Nadar's statement, there was any material for the Tribunal to find that Rs. 24,000 constituted the income of the assessee in the relevant year of account." The assessee is a general merchant in Ceylon. He owns house-properties in India. His assessment under the Indian Income-tax Act, for the assessment year 1947-48, corresponding to the previous year ended on March 31, 1947, was completed under section 23(3). But, subsequently, the Income-tax Officer commenced proceedings under section 34 of the Act on the basis of certain information that the assessee had acquired properties in Ceylon during the accounting year but failed to disclose it in the books of account. The properties of the value of Rs. 24,000 were s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llate Tribunal by the assessee. The Tribunal thought it fair that the assessee should have an opportunity to cross-examine Solomon Nadar, who had not been examined in his presence. The Tribunal, therefore, remanded the proceedings to the Income-tax Officer for further examination of Solomon Nadar after due notice to the assessee. Unfortunately, Solomon Nadar, who was a resident of Ceylon, did not choose to go to India. Every time a date was fixed for the enquiry, he was resourceful to offer some excuse for his not being able to be present. Ultimately, he sent the following letter on February 11, 1958, to the department: "Besides the information hitherto furnished, I think I will have no more information to furnish. While my stat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ross-examine him. Learned counsel also contends that it is because the Tribunal was unable to accept the evidence of Solomon Nadar recorded behind the back of the assessee that the proceedings were remanded to give the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination. We are of opinion that it cannot be said as a general proposition of law that any evidence upon which the department might rely should have been subjected to cross-examination. The procedure for assessment is indicated in section 23(3) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer is not a court. Having regard to the nature of the proceedings, he occupies the position of a quasi- judicial tribunal. He is not bound by the rules of evidence in the Indian Evidence Act. The limit of the enqu....