ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INVESTIGATION) vs. PRAVINCHANDRA MANILAL MODI

PDF · subscribers
SCA/10666/2016HC GujaratGJHC24047579201619 November 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H.VORA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. It held that the trial judge's order to have the Income Tax Officer remain present for examination and cross-examination was incorrect. The court noted that the documents produced through the Income Tax Officer were admitted by the trial judge. However, since there was no express prayer made by either the plaintiff or the defendant for the examination of this witness, and no such request was proceeded with or made by the parties, the order to summon the witness was quashed and set aside. The court found that the present petition required acceptance under these circumstances. The petition was disposed of with this observation and direction.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation), filed a Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by the learned 11th Additional Sr. Civil Judge and A.C.J.M., Surat, in Special Civil Suit No. 86 of 2010, dated April 26, 2016. The impugned order, passed below Exh.-159, admitted documents produced at mark 157/1 to 157/14. Crucially, the trial judge also directed an Income Tax Officer to remain present for examination and cross-examination by the parties to the suit. The petitioner contended that no party had requested the summoning of this witness, and the documents were produced for examination, not for the witness's deposition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the trial court erred in ordering the Income Tax Officer to remain present for oral evidence and deposition regarding documents submitted at Exhibit-157, when no party had requested the summoning of such a witness, turning on the principles of civil procedure and evidence law. Assessee's contentions (Petitioner - Additional Director of Income Tax): - The trial court's order to summon the Income Tax Officer for oral evidence was erroneous as no party to the suit had made any request for such a summoning. - The documents were produced for examination, and their admission by the court did not automatically necessitate the physical presence and deposition of the Income Tax Officer. Revenue's contentions (Respondents - Pravinchandra Manilal Modi and others): - The judgment does not record any specific contentions raised by the respondents in opposition to the petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Article 226, Article 227

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/SCA/10666/2016 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10666 of 2016 ============================================= ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INVESTIGATION) Versus PRAVINCHANDRA MANILAL MODI ============================================= Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR ARPIT A KAPADIA(3974) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MR DAXAY D PATEL(6633) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 5,6,7 ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA Date : 19/11/2018

ORAL ORDER By way of present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has made following prayer in para 12(B): “Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the order qua ordering the witness to remain present and give oral evidence and to depose with regard to documents submitted below Exhibit- 157 passed in Special Civil Suit No.86 of 2010 dated 26/04/2016 passed by the learned 11th Additional Sr. Civil Judge and A.C.J.M. Surat, in the interest of justice.”

Vide order below Exh.-159 passed in Special Civil Suit No.86 of 2010 the learned trial Judge admitted the documents produced at mark 157/1 to 157/14. In addition, the learned trial Judge also ordered Income Tax Officer to remain present for examination and C/SCA/10666/2016 ORDER cross-examination at the hands of the parties to the suit. It seems that there is no any request made by either of the parties to summon the witness but produced the said documents for his examination before the court. It is a matter of fact that the documents produced through the said witness of income tax department are the documents admitted by the learned trial Judge and when there is no express prayer made by the plaintiff for his examination and further no any such request proceeded or made by the defendant, under the circumstances, present petition requires to be accepted and impugned order passed below Exh.-159 to the extent ordering the witness to remain present is hereby quashed and set aside.

With this observation and direction, present petition stands disposed of. (S.H.VORA, J.)

Dolly

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →