9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of ITO to levy fine under s. 180 of IPC r/w s. 131 of IT Act, 1961. 2. Requirement of witness to sign the statement recorded by ITO under s. 131(2) of IT Act. 3. Interpretation of evidentiary value of witness statements in income-tax proceedings. 4. Applicability of Order 18 r. 5 of CPC, 1908 in recording evidence. 5. Presumption of genuineness of evidence under sec. 80 of Indian Evidence Act. 6. Justifiability of fine imposed under s. 131(2) of IT Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appellant contested the fine of Rs. 400 imposed by the ITO under s. 180 of IPC r/w s. 131 of IT Act, 1961, for refusing to sign the statement recorded during proceedings. The AAC acknowledged that the ITO lacked the power to invoke s. 180 of IPC, but justified the fine based on the necessity of signed statements for evidentiary value in confidential income-tax proceedings. The appellant challenged this reasoning, leading to the appeal before the tribunal. 2. The crux of the issue revolved around whether a witness summoned under s. 131 of IT Act must sign the statement recorded by the ITO. The AAC emphasized the importance of signed statements in maintaining evidentiary value in income-tax proceedings, where the ITO acts as both a Revenue representative and a Court. The tribunal, however, disagreed with this stance, asserting that the credibility of the officer recording the evidence should determine its evidentiary weight, rather than the witness's signature. 3. The tribunal delved into the interpretation of evidentiary value in income-tax proceedings, highlighting the presumption favoring the officers recording evidence and the burden on the witness to prove otherwise. It rejected the notion that a statement must be signed to be considered evidence, emphasizing that the onus lies on the witness to challenge the recorded statement's accuracy. 4. Regarding the recording of evidence, the tribunal referenced Order 18 r. 5 of CPC, 1908, which outlines the procedure for recording witness statements in appealable cases. It noted that this provision does not mandate witness signatures on recorded statements to establish their evidentiary value. 5. The tribunal analyzed the presumption of genuineness of evidence under sec. 80 of the Indian Evidence Act, emphasizing that the identity of the person making the statement must be proven but not necessarily through a signed statement. The absence of any legal provision requiring witness signatures on recorded statements further supported the tribunal's stance. 6. Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that the fine imposed under s. 131(2) of the IT Act was unjustifiable in the appellant's case, as there was no direct contravention of the provision. It emphasized that the onus of proving the contrary to the recorded statement lies on the witness and that the mere refusal to sign does not negate the statement's evidentiary value. As a result, the tribunal allowed the appeal and canceled the ITO's orders, highlighting the lack of legal basis for imposing the fine.
|
