What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the petitioner had already filed the relevant income tax assessment documents before the lower court. Since the documents were available and the respondent's counsel confirmed their dispatch by the department, summoning a witness was deemed unnecessary.

The petitioner challenged an order allowing the respondent to summon a witness from the Income Tax Department to establish the petitioner's income. The petitioner claimed to be aggrieved by this order.

What were the issues?

Whether summoning an Income Tax Department witness is necessary when the required documents have already been produced by the assessee.

Neil Antony Rodrigues vs Mrs Emilynne Helen Pais | Karnataka High Court 2015

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2015

BEFORE:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA

WRIT PETITION NO.39291/2013(GM-FC) BETWEEN:

NEIL ANTONY RODRIGUES S/O WILFRED RODRIGUES AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS WORKING AT, INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD KAMBALAPADAV, KURNAD POST PAJIR VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK . .. PETITIONER

(BY SRI.CYRIL PRASAD PAIS ADVOCATE) AND: MRS EMILYNNE HELEN PAIS W/O NEIL ANTONY RODRIGUEZ D/O D.N.J. PAIS AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT "STEPHKEN" PAIS LANE, BALMATTA GARDEN MANGALORE-575002 ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI M VISHWAJITH RAI ADVOCATE) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION

IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDE

2 DT.5.8.13, PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT AT MANGALORE DK, IN MC.NO.234/11 ON IA.NO.III FILED U/O XVI RULE 1 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., & CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANN-A.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order 05.08.2013 passed on I.A.No.III in M.C.NO.234/2011. The respondent herein who is the petitioner in M.C.NO.234/2011 in order to establish the income of the petitioner had sought for summoning a witness from the Income Tax Department along with the documents relating to the petitioner herein. The application filed under order XVI Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC was allowed by the Court below. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court.

This Court at the first instance while directing notice to the respondent had also taken note of the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner

3 that copies of the income tax assessment documents would be filed before the Court below. At this stage, it is brought to the notice of this Court that such documents have been filed before the Court below and is available on record. In that view, the summoning of the witness would not be necessary since the petitioner himself has produced the documents and further learned Counsel for the respondent would also submit that such document has been despatched by the Department. The document shall be taken note by the Court below and allow the parties to rely upon the same. In that view, there is no need to set aside the order which is impugned herein since it has spent itself.

In that view, the petition is treated as infructuous and is disposed of.

SD/-

JUDGE

NEIL ANTONY RODRIGUES vs. MRS EMILYNNE HELEN PAIS

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments