{"id":108457,"date":"1990-07-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1990-07-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kusum-lata-singhal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-july-1990"},"modified":"2016-04-11T14:13:53","modified_gmt":"2016-04-11T08:43:53","slug":"smt-kusum-lata-singhal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-july-1990","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kusum-lata-singhal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-july-1990","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Kusum Lata Singhal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax &#8230; on 16 July, 1990"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Smt. Kusum Lata Singhal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax &#8230; on 16 July, 1990<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR  236, \t\t  1990 SCR  (3) 393<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Mukharji<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (Cj)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSMT. KUSUM LATA SINGHAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT16\/07\/1990\n\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (CJ)\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (CJ)\nRAMASWAMY, K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1991 AIR  236\t\t  1990 SCR  (3) 393\n 1990 SCC  (4)\t98\t  JT 1990 (3)\t287\n 1990 SCALE  (2)121\n\n\nACT:\n    Income  Tax\t Act, 1961\/Income Tax Rules,  1962:  Section\n132(5), (7)\/Rule  112A--Search and seizure by I.T.  authori-\nties--Assessee whether entitled to return of valuables.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The petitioner was carrying on business as a stockist of\nBaba  Brand  Tobacco. The petitioner's husband,\t who  was  a\nsub-dealer of the product, was living with her at all  mate-\nrial times.\n    A  search  under section 132 of the Income Tax  Act\t was\nconducted at their house and valuables and books of  account\nseized.\t A  notice under rule 112A of the Income  Tax  Rules\nread  with  sub-section (5) of section 132 of  the  Act\t was\nserved on the petitioner.\nThe petitioner filed an application in the High Court  under\nArticle\t 226 of the Constitution claiming return of  account\nbooks and other\n valuables  to\ther. On the other hand, in  the\t proceedings\nunder  Section\t132(5) of the Act against  the\tpetitioner's\nhusband,  he had claimed that the ornaments belonged to\t him\nand  that  the\tsame could be treated  as  representing\t his\nundisclosed income.\n    The High Court came to the conclusion that the  authori-\nsation\tfor search under section 132(1) of the\tAct  against\nthe  petitioner was not in accordance with law\tand,  there-\nfore,  the seizure of the assets could not be said  to\thave\nbeen  in accordance with law. The High Court  however  noted\nthat  in view of the order made under section 132(5) of\t the\nAct against the husband, the valuables could not be  ordered\nto be returned to the petitioner.\n    Before  this  Court, it was contended on behalf  of\t the\npetitioner  that  if search and seizure\t were  illegal,\t the\nitems of jewellery were liable to be returned- On behalf  of\nthe  Revenue,  it was contended that in\t a  situation  where\nthere was a dispute as to who was the owner of the jewellery\nand  ornaments, the decision of the High Court declining  to\ndirect their return to the petitioner could not be faulted.\n394\nDismissing the special leave petition, the Court,\n    HELD: (1) A dispute as to the ownership of jewellery  in\nquestion cannot be resolved in proceedings under Article 226\nof  the Constitution in the manner sought for by  the  peti-\ntioner. [397F]\n    (2)\t In  the instant controversy the Court is  not\tcon-\ncerned\twhether\t the proceedings against the  husband  under\nsection 132(5) of the Act are valid or not, but irrespective\nof the validity of the proceedings, the evidence or testimo-\nny wherein the husband has asserted the ornaments and jewel-\nlery  to  be his, cannot be wiped out and  does\t not  become\nnon-existent.  The aforesaid being the factual\tmatrix,\t the\nHigh  Court  was  pre-eminently justified  in  declining  to\ndirect return of these items of jewellery and other items to\nthe  wife. If that is the position, then it cannot  be\tsaid\nthat  the  High Court has committed any error in  law  which\nrequired  rectification by this Court under Article  136  of\nthe Constitution. [397E-G]\n    Assainer  &amp; Anr. v. Income Tax Officer, Calicut,  [1975]\n101  ITR  854; <a href=\"\/doc\/1108390\/\">J.R. Malhotra &amp; Anr. v.\tAdditional  Sessions\nJudge,\tJullunder,<\/a>  [1976]  2 SCR 993  and  <a href=\"\/doc\/913336\/\">Commissioner  of\nCommercial  Taxes,  Board of Revenue, Madras  v.  Ramkishnan\nShrikishan Jhaver, AIR<\/a> 1968 SC 59, distinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>    CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Special  Leave  Petition<br \/>\n(Civil) No. 15327 of 1989.\n<\/p>\n<p>    From  the  Judgment and Order dated 18.7.  1989  of\t the<br \/>\nRajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2161 of<br \/>\n1988.\n<\/p>\n<p>C.S. Agarwal, H.R. Parekh, S.K. Jain for the Petitioner.<br \/>\n    O.P.  Vaish,  S. Rajappa and Ms. A. Subhashini  for\t the<br \/>\nRespondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n    SABYASACHI\tMUKHARJI, CJ. This is a special leave  peti-<br \/>\ntion  directed\tagainst the judgment and order of  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  of Rajasthan, dated 18th July, 1989.  The  petitioner<br \/>\nherein\ti.e.  Smt.  Kusum Lata Singhal carried\ton,  at\t all<br \/>\nrelevant  times, business under the name and style  of\tM\/s.<br \/>\nLata  &amp; Company and she claims to be an authorised  stockist<br \/>\nof Baba Brand Tobacco manufactured by M\/s.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">495<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Dharampal Premchand Ltd., New Delhi. Mr. R.K. Singhal is the<br \/>\nhusband of the petitioner. In the judgment under appeal,  it<br \/>\nhas been stated that Mr. R.K. Singhal owns a house No. E117,<br \/>\nShastri\t Nagar in Jaipur and the petitioner lived  with\t her<br \/>\nhusband at all material times. Mr. Singhal was a partner  in<br \/>\nLata  Sales  Centre and is said to be a sub-dealer  of\tM\/s.<br \/>\nLata &amp; Company.\n<\/p>\n<p>    A  search  under  section 134 of  the  Income  Tax\tAct,<br \/>\n(hereinafter  called  &#8216;the Act&#8217;) was conducted at  the\tsaid<br \/>\npremises  on  25\/26th  November, 1987.\tDuring\tthe  search,<br \/>\nvaluables  and books of accounts were seized on 26th  Novem-<br \/>\nber,  1987, and a notice under rule 112A of the\t Income\t Tax<br \/>\nRules,\t1962 (hereinafter referred to as &#8216;the  Rules&#8217;)\tread<br \/>\nwith sub-section (5) of Section 132 of the Act was issued to<br \/>\nthe  petitioner\t by the Income Tax Officer. The\t notice\t was<br \/>\nserved on the husband of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In the application under Article 226 of the Constitution<br \/>\nof India filed before the High Court, the petitioner claimed<br \/>\nreturn\tof  account  books and other  valuables\t which\twere<br \/>\nseized\ton 26th November, 1987. The return was\tclaimed\t be-<br \/>\ncause,\taccording  to the petitioner, the retention  of\t the<br \/>\nbooks  and valuables was in violation of the  provisions  of<br \/>\nsection 132 of the Act. The High Court in the judgment under<br \/>\nappeal\tcame  to the conclusion that the  authorisation\t for<br \/>\nsearch\tin the instant case under section 132(1) of the\t Act<br \/>\nwas not valid or legal. Therefore, the High Court held\tthat<br \/>\nsearch\twas bad. At the time of search the silver  and\tgold<br \/>\nornaments worth about Rs.4,58,1089 were found and some other<br \/>\nsilver and gold ornaments were also found but these were not<br \/>\nseized. The High Court had directed return of account  books<br \/>\nto  the petitioner on furnishing photostat  copies  thereof.<br \/>\nThe High Court came to the conclusion that the authorisation<br \/>\nunder  section 132(1) of the Act was not in accordance\twith<br \/>\nlaw  and,  therefore, the search and seizure of\t the  assets<br \/>\ncould  not be said to have been in accordance with law.\t The<br \/>\nHigh Court noted that in view of the fact that by virtue  of<br \/>\nthe  power  under section 132(7) and the  order\t made  under<br \/>\nsection\t 132(5) of the Act against the husband of the  peti-<br \/>\ntioner,\t the valuables etc. could not be ordered to  be\t re-<br \/>\nturned to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner seeks to challenge the<br \/>\nsaid  order under Article 136 of the Constitution of  India.<br \/>\nMr.  C.S.  Agarwal appearing for the  petitioner,  contended<br \/>\nbefore\tus that if search and seizure were illegal then\t the<br \/>\nevidence  obtained by such search and seizure could be\tuti-<br \/>\nlised in subsequent proceedings, but the items of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">386<\/span><br \/>\njewellery   and\t  goods\t worth,\t according  to\t him,\tover<br \/>\nRs.2,97,000  were  liable to be returned. We  are,  however,<br \/>\nunable\tto  entertain this appeal. In the instant  case\t the<br \/>\nhusband of the wife stayed in the same premises. The author-<br \/>\nisation\t of search and seizure in respect of  account  books<br \/>\nand goods which were seized was against the wife but in\t the<br \/>\nproceedings under section 132(5) of the Act the husband\t Mr.<br \/>\nSinghal\t has  contended and claimed that  the  ornaments  in<br \/>\nquestion or the jewellery belonged to him.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Mr.\t Vaish, learned counsel appearing for  the  revenue,<br \/>\nhas  drawn our attention to an authorisation issued  against<br \/>\nthe husband Mr. Singhal under sub-section (5) of section 132<br \/>\nof  the\t Act. Indeed, Mr. R.K. Singhal has  stated  on\toath<br \/>\nbefore the authorised officer at the time of search that the<br \/>\nsame  belonged\tto  him and he has claimed the\tsame  to  be<br \/>\ntreated\t as  representing his undisclosed income.  Mr.\tR.K.<br \/>\nSinghal,  the husband, as his evidence has recorded  in\t the<br \/>\nproceedings against him, has disclosed the same and  surren-<br \/>\ndered  a total sum of over Rs.4,00,000 consisting of  undis-<br \/>\nclosed\tcash of Rs. 1,16,550 and excessive  jewellery  worth<br \/>\nRs.2,97,750  received from his possession as his income\t for<br \/>\nthe  purpose of income-tax assessment for the current  year,<br \/>\nwhich he claims to have earned from his business. Therefore,<br \/>\nit  appears that there is dispute as to who is the owner  of<br \/>\nthe  jewellery and ornaments or in other words, to  whom  do<br \/>\nthese  belong.\tIf in such a situation the  High  Court\t has<br \/>\ndeclined  to direct return of items of jewellery  and  orna-<br \/>\nments,\tsuch  decision cannot be faulted.  Even\t though\t the<br \/>\nsearch\tand seizure has been declared illegal, it cannot  be<br \/>\nillegal\t and  the question of, dispute about the  items\t not<br \/>\nbeing  urged before the High Court, we cannot say  that\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  has committed any error in\t this  case  thereby<br \/>\nrequiring  interference by this Court, or, in  other  words,<br \/>\nthat injustice has been caused to any party.<br \/>\n    It is well-settled that the dispute as to the  ownership<br \/>\nof  jewellery in question cannot be reserved in\t proceedings<br \/>\nunder  Article 226 of the Constitution in the manner  sought<br \/>\nfor by the petitioner. Mr. Agarwal drew our attention to the<br \/>\ndecision in Assaina &amp; Anr. v. Income Tax Officer, Calicut  &amp;<br \/>\nOrs.,  [1975] 101 ITR 854 wherein the Kerala High Court\t has<br \/>\nobserved  that the goods which were seized from the  custody<br \/>\nof  a particular person, should normally be returned to\t the<br \/>\nperson\tfrom  whose custody the same had  been\tseized.\t The<br \/>\naforesaid  may be the position where there is no dispute  as<br \/>\nto the ownership of the goods in question. In such a  situa-<br \/>\ntion,  return of the goods to the person from whose  custody<br \/>\nthe  same are seized, may be possible but the said  decision<br \/>\nor the observations therein would be no authority in support<br \/>\nof  the\t petitioner&#8217;s contention in the instant\t case  where<br \/>\nthere is a dispute.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">397<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    Our attention was also drawn to certain observations  of<br \/>\nthis Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1108390\/\">J.R. Malhotra &amp; Anr. v. Addl. Sessions  Judge,<br \/>\nJullundur &amp; Ors.,<\/a> [1976] 2 SCR 993 in support of the  propo-<br \/>\nsition\tthat  revenue could not indirectly  keep  the  money<br \/>\nseized on the plea that there would be a demand and that the<br \/>\nmoney may be kept by revenue where surrender and seizure was<br \/>\nwrong. We are afraid that the aforesaid observations of this<br \/>\nCourt  are also of no avail in the light of the\t perspective<br \/>\nthat  we have mentioned hereinbefore. The said\tobservations<br \/>\nwere made entirely in a different context.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Our attention was also drawn to the observations of this<br \/>\nCourt in <a href=\"\/doc\/913336\/\">Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Board of Revenue,<br \/>\nMadras &amp; Anr. v. Ramkishan Shrikishan Jhaver<\/a> etc., AIR\t1968<br \/>\nSC  59 in support of the proposition that when a search\t was<br \/>\nfound illegal, the goods should be returned. Normally speak-<br \/>\ning, that would be so. This proposition is unexceptional but<br \/>\nin the light of the controversy as we have perceived in this<br \/>\ncase,  we  are clearly of the opinion that  this  submission<br \/>\nwill not be of any assistance in doing justice in this case.<br \/>\n    Mr.\t Agarwal further contended that if  the\t proceedings<br \/>\nunder Section 132(5) for the original search were held to be<br \/>\ninvalid\t then  all proceedings thereafter would\t be  invalid<br \/>\nand,  therefore,  the proceedings initiated as a  result  of<br \/>\nthat  search even against the husband, would be invalid\t and<br \/>\nsuch a statement of the husband recorded, cannot be utilised<br \/>\nany further. In the instant controversy we are not concerned<br \/>\nwhether\t the proceedings against the husband  under  section<br \/>\n132(5)\tof the Act are valid or not but irrespective of\t the<br \/>\nvalidity  of the proceedings, the evidence or  testimony  as<br \/>\nmentioned  hereinbefore, wherein he has asserted  the  orna-<br \/>\nments and jewellery to be his, cannot be wiped out and\tdoes<br \/>\nnot  become non-existent. After all, we are  concerned\twith<br \/>\nthe contention of the husband that the jewellery in question<br \/>\nbelongs to him, in this case. The aforesaid being the factu-<br \/>\nal matrix, the High Court, in our opinion, was pre-eminently<br \/>\njustified  in declining to direct return of these  identical<br \/>\njewellery and other items to the wife. If that is the  posi-<br \/>\ntion then it cannot be said that the High Court has  commit-<br \/>\nted  any error in law which requires rectification  by\tthis<br \/>\nCourt.\tThis application for leave under Article 136 of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution  is certainly not entertainable. In  the  prem-<br \/>\nises,  this application must be dismissed without any  order<br \/>\nas to costs. Interim orders, if any, are vacated.\n<\/p>\n<pre>R.S.S.\t\t\t\t\t      Petition\tdis-\nmissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">398<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Smt. Kusum Lata Singhal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax &#8230; on 16 July, 1990 Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 236, 1990 SCR (3) 393 Author: S Mukharji Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (Cj) PETITIONER: SMT. KUSUM LATA SINGHAL Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT16\/07\/1990 BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (CJ) [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-108457","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Smt. Kusum Lata Singhal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 16 July, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kusum-lata-singhal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-july-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Kusum Lata Singhal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 16 July, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kusum-lata-singhal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-july-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1990-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-11T08:43:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kusum-lata-singhal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-july-1990#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kusum-lata-singhal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-july-1990\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Kusum Lata Singhal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax &#8230; on 16 July, 1990\",\"datePublished\":\"1990-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-11T08:43:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kusum-lata-singhal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-july-1990\"},\"wordCount\":1518,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kusum-lata-singhal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-july-1990#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kusum-lata-singhal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-july-1990\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kusum-lata-singhal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-july-1990\",\"name\":\"Smt. Kusum Lata Singhal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 16 July, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1990-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-11T08:43:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kusum-lata-singhal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-july-1990#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kusum-lata-singhal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-july-1990\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kusum-lata-singhal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-july-1990#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Kusum Lata Singhal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax &#8230; on 16 July, 1990\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Smt. Kusum Lata Singhal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 16 July, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kusum-lata-singhal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-july-1990","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Kusum Lata Singhal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 16 July, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kusum-lata-singhal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-july-1990","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1990-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-11T08:43:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kusum-lata-singhal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-july-1990#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kusum-lata-singhal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-july-1990"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Kusum Lata Singhal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax &#8230; on 16 July, 1990","datePublished":"1990-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-11T08:43:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kusum-lata-singhal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-july-1990"},"wordCount":1518,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kusum-lata-singhal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-july-1990#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kusum-lata-singhal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-july-1990","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kusum-lata-singhal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-july-1990","name":"Smt. Kusum Lata Singhal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 16 July, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1990-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-11T08:43:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kusum-lata-singhal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-july-1990#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kusum-lata-singhal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-july-1990"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kusum-lata-singhal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-july-1990#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Kusum Lata Singhal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax &#8230; on 16 July, 1990"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108457","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=108457"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108457\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=108457"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=108457"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=108457"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}