AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Burn, J.—In my opinion the decision of the learned District Judge is correct.
Secondary evidence of the contents of the Income Tax return is admissible, according to the contention of earned Counsel for the petitioner, u/s 65(a) of the Evidence Act. I am however unable to agree that the Income Tax Officer is "not subject to the process of the Court". On the contrary he is subject to every process of the Court, but u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act, the Court cannot require him to produce before it any of the documents mentioned in that section. Section 54 of the Income Tax Act lays a prohibition on the Court; it does not confer any exemption on the Income Tax Officer.
There is no other provision of law under which secondary evidence would be admissible.
This petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.