TMI Blog1963 (9) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al to find that ₹ 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 ₹ 24,000 were said to have been purchased at Baligoda, Ceylon. In response to the notice, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at 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 statement has been accepted and assessment has been completed including ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 enquiry and the kind of materials or evidence which he can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me-tax Officer cannot assess by keeping the assessee in the dark as to the materials against him. In the present case, the basis of reassessment is only Solomon Nadar's statement. There is nothing else to support it. Can his statement be accepted as true? This is for the department to decide. It is not an extraneous circumstance which ought to be excluded from consideration. The value or weight to be attached to it falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the department and the Tribunal. This court cannot reweigh or reappraise the evidence leading to the assessment and reach a contrary conclusion. Such is the limited jurisdiction of this court. In our opinion Solomon Nadar's statement was sufficient evidence and there is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
