Devasahaya Nadar v. CIT

51 ITR 20High Court1964#2725 most cited

What is Devasahaya Nadar v. CIT authority for?

The right to cross-examine is not an absolute or universal right in income tax proceedings. The Income Tax Officer, while acting as a quasi-judicial tribunal and observing natural justice, is not bound by the Evidence Act or required to allow cross-examination of every piece of evidence or disclose the source of information.

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Devasahaya Nadar v. CIT · right to cross-examine · natural justice violation · evidence admissibility · Assessing Officer powers · Income Tax Act · Section 142(1) · Section 143(2) · Section 68 · Section 69C · quasi-judicial tribunal · informant disclosure

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 69CSection 142(1)Section 148Section 153ASection 10(38)Section 115BBESection 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

violation of natural justicesection 147(a)bogus ltcgcolourable devicebogus long term capital gainshort term capital gainspenny stocksection 10(38)business connectionbest judgment assessmentlong term capital gainsshort term capital gain

Judgments citing Devasahaya Nadar v. CIT

Genom Biotech Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT CC -40, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4656/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ment and marketing expenses. (l) The assessee has contended that it was not given opportunity to cross examine Shri Anupam, another employee who had deposed against the assessee. The Hon’ble Madras High Court has held in the case of Devasahaya Nadar Vs. CIT (51 ITR 20) that the quasi judicial authorities are not bound by rules of Evidence Act and hence it cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that income tax department cannot rely upon any evidence which has not been subjected to cross examination. The range of natural justice is wide and whether or not there has been violation of natural justice w…

Eastern Sales Agencies, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 22, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2186/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2186/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Mrs. Chitra Agarwal, Asst. Cit-16(1), बनाम/ C/O. Laxmi Ventures India Ltd. Mumbai 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade, Vs. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 034 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaipa 3251 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Haridas Bhat ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Hemalatha

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Ms. Hemalatha
Section 143Section 147Section 69C

…as not its owner, was on that person. Thus, this principle could be attracted to a set of circumstances that satisfies its conditions and was applicable to taxing proceedings. 2.4.24 As regards the issue of cross-examination, in T, Devasahaya Nadarv. C/7[1964]51 ITR 20 (Mad.), it was held: "It cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that the Income- tax Department cannot rely upon any evidence which has not been subjected to cross-examination. An ITO occupies the position of a quasi-judicial Tribunal and is not bound by the rules of the Evidence Act, but he must act in consonance with natural justice,…

Kiran Navin Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO -23(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2601/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deysmt. Kiran Navin Doshi Income Tax Officer-23(2)(4) D-705, Kalp Nagri C-10, Pratyksha Kar Bhavan Vs. B.R. Road, Mulund (W) Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai 400080 Mumbai Pan – Abwpd5848A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Milind Rajguru
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…That is a risk which an assessee resorting to unfair tax saving devices has necessarily to run and an assessee who has resorted to such devices has to thank himself for it.” 7.22. As regards the issue of cross-examination, in T. Devasahaya Nadar v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 20 (Mad.), it was held: 'It cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that the Income-tax Department cannot rely upon any evidence which has not been subjected to cross-examination. An ITO occupies the position of a quasi-judicial Tribunal and is not bound by the rules of the Evidence Act, but he must act in consonance with natural justice,…