{"id":11030,"date":"1964-10-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1964-10-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-raman-chettiar-on-27-october-1964"},"modified":"2016-05-16T05:48:35","modified_gmt":"2016-05-16T00:18:35","slug":"commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-raman-chettiar-on-27-october-1964","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-raman-chettiar-on-27-october-1964","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs S. Raman Chettiar on 27 October, 1964"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs S. Raman Chettiar on 27 October, 1964<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 1031, \t\t 1965 SCR (1) 883<\/div>\n
Author: S Sikri<\/div>\n
Bench: Sikri, S.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nS.   RAMAN CHETTIAR\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n27\/10\/1964\n\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nSUBBARAO, K.\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1965 AIR 1031\t\t  1965 SCR  (1) 883\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1969 SC 496\t (3,6)\n APL\t    1969 SC 831\t (4)\n D\t    1974 SC1985\t (12)\n R\t    1986 SC1853\t (17)\n\n\nACT:\nIndian Income-tax Act (11 of 1922), ss. 22(3) and 34-Invalid\nnotice\tunder s. 34-Return submitted-Subsequent\t proceedings\nunder s. 34-If can be taken ignoring return.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nIn response to a notice dated 3rd April 1948, under s. 34 of\nthe  Indian  Income-tax Act, 1922,  the\t assessee  submitted\nreturns\t for the assessment years 1944-45 and 1945-46.\t The\nIncome-tax  Officer dropped proceedings for the former\tyear\nand  determined the net taxable income for the latter  year.\nThe   see   appealed  first  to\t the   Appellate   Assistant\nCommissioner  and  then\t to  the  Appellate  Tribunal.\t The\nTribunal allowed the appeal in part, held that a portion  of\nthe profit determined was assessable in the assessment\tyear\n1944-45\t and  observed, that the Income-tax Officer  was  at\nliberty to take appropriate action.  The Income-tax  Officer\nagain  issued  a  notice under s.  34  after  obtaining\t the\nsanction  of the Commissioner, as required by  the  Amending\nAct  48\t of  1948 (passed on 8th September  1948,  but\tmade\nretrospective  from  30th  March 1948), in  respect  of\t the\nassessment  year  1944-45.  He brought to  tax,\t the  amount\ndetermined  by the Tribunal as the profit of the year.\t The\nassessee's  appeals to the Appellate Assistant\tCommissioner\nand  the  Appellate Tribunal were  unsuccessful.   The\tHigh\nCourt,\ton  a  reference, held in  favour  of  the  assessee\nholding\t that  the; reassessment under s. 34  for  the\tyear\n1944-45\t was  not valid.  The Commissioner appealed  to\t the\nSupreme Court.\nHELD  :\t The first return submitted by the  assessee  was  a\nvalid  return  under  s. 22(3).\t The  Department  could\t not\ntherefore,  ignore  it and issue notice under s. 34  on\t the\nassumption that there had been an omission or failure on the\npart of the assessee to make a return under s. 22. [884 B-C;\n887 C]\nSection 22(3) permits an assessee to furnish a return at any\ntime before the assessment is made, that is, before the time\nmentioned in s. 34(3).\tIt need not be a voluntary return in\nthe  sense  that it must be suo motu.  If the  first  notice\nunder  s. 34 was held to be bad because\t the  Commissioner'&\nsanction  was not obtained as required by the  amendment  of\n1948,  it did not follow that a return made in pursuance  of\nit must also be treated as bad.\t If a return otherwise valid\nis filed by an assessee before the receipt of a valid notice\nunder s. 34, it has to be treated as a valid return within\ns.   22(3). [886 F-H; 889 C-D, F]\nCommissioner  of  Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa\tv.  Maharaja\nPratap\tSingh  Bahadur\tof Gidhaur,<\/a> (1961)  41\tI.T.R.\t421,\ndistinguished,\nCommissioner  of  Income-tax,  Bombay  City.  v.  Ranchoddas\nKarsondas,<\/a> (1959) 36 I.T.R. 569, referred to.\nR.   K.\t Das  &\t Co. v.\t Commissioner  of  Income-tax,\tWest\nBengal, (1956) 30 I.T.R. 439, overruled.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1096 of
\n1963.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment dated January  3,
\n1961  of the Madras High Court in Case Referred No.  114  of
\n1956..\n<\/p>\n
L2Sup\/65-13
\n\t\t\t    884<\/span>
\nK.   N.\t Rajgopala Sastri, R. H. Dhebar and R. N.  Sachthey,
\nfor the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
S. Swaminathan and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSikri J. This is an appeal by special leave directed against
\nthe judgment of the Madras High Court answering the question
\n‘whether the reassessment under s. 34 (of the Indian  Income
\nTax  Act,  1922) completed on 30th June, 1953 for  the\tyear
\n1944-45\t is valid’ in the negative.  The relevant facts\t are
\nas follows
\nThe respondent, hereinafter referred to as the assessee is a
\nHindu  undivided family.  For the assessment  years  1944-45
\nand  1945-46, the assessee filed no returns under s.  22  of
\nthe  Indian Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to  as\t the
\nAct, nor were any notices issued under s. 22(2) of the\tAct.
\nOn  April  3, 1948, the Income Tax  Officer  issued  notices
\nunder S. 34 for both the assessment years.  At that time  it
\nwas not necessary to obtain sanction of the Commissioner  of
\nIncome\tTax  and none was obtained.  The  assessee  filed  a
\nreturn for the assessment year 1944-45 on September 4, 1948,
\nshowing\t an  income  of Rs. 4,053 which was  below  the\t HUF
\ntaxable\t limit\tof  Rs. 7,200.\tThe assessee  also  filed  a
\nreturn for the assessment year 1945-46.\t It appears that the
\nIncome\tTax  Officer dropped proceedings for 1944-45  as  in
\nfructuous, but for the assessment year 1945-46, he passed an
\norder  on  October  27, 1950, determining  the\tnet  taxable
\nincome\tas  Rs.\t 1,20,603.  The\t assessee  appealed  to\t the
\nAppellate  Assistant ,Commissioner and then appealed to\t the
\nAppellate  Tribunal.   On November 19, 1952,  the  Appellate
\nTribunal  allowed the appeal in part. It held that out of  a
\ntotal profit of Rs. 79,760 arising from the sale of  certain
\nproperties, only Rs. 33,000 was assessable in the assessment
\nyear 1945-46 and Rs. 46,760 was assessable in the assessment
\nyear 1944-45.  The Appellate Tribunal ,observed thus in\t the
\norder:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The Income Tax Officer is at liberty to\ttake
\n\t      such  action  as he may be advised  about\t the
\n\t      assessee’s  liability  for  the  earlier\tyear
\n\t      1944-45.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On February 27, 1953, after having obtained the sanction  of
\nthe  Commissioner,  the Income Tax Officer issued  a  notice
\npurporting  to be under S. 34 of the Act in respect  of\t the
\nassessment year 1944-45.  It is the validity of this  notice
\nthat  is now in question.  The Income Tax Officer  paged  an
\norder  on June 30, 1953, assessing the total income  as\t Rs.
\n51,523.\t The Appellate Assistant
\n\t\t\t    885<\/span>
\nCommissioner affirmed the order.  He held that the action of
\nthe  Income  Tax Officer in starting  proceedings  under  s.
\n34(1)  (a) was valid.  He further held that in view  of\t the
\nfinding\t of  the  Appellate Tribunal  that  the\t Income\t Tax
\nOfficer\t would\tbe  at\tliberty to  take  action  about\t the
\nassessee’s  liability  to tax for  1944-45  assessment,\t the
\nsecond proviso to sub-s. (3) of s. 34, as amended by  Amend-
\nment Act of 1953, was applicable and consequently the  time-
\nlimit  specified  in  s. 34 would not  be  applicable.\t The
\nAppellate Tribunal, without going into the question  whether
\ns.  34 ( 1 ) (a) could be invoked by the  Revenue,  affirmed
\nthe  assessment on the ground that the second proviso to  s.
\n34(3) of the Act, as amended, applied.\n<\/p>\n
At  the\t instance of the assessee,  the\t Appellate  Tribunal
\nreferred  the  question\t set out in  the  beginning  of\t the
\njudgment.   The High Court, as already stated, answered\t the
\nquestion in the negative.  It held that notwithstanding that
\nthe  return filed by the assessee on September 4, 1948,\t was
\nthe result of an invalid notice, the return itself could not
\nbe  ignored  or\t disregarded  by  the  Department,  and\t the
\nDepartment cannot issue a further notice under s. 34(1)\t (a)
\nof the Act on the assumption that there had been an omission
\nor  failure on the part of the assessee to make a return  of
\nhis  income under s. 22. It further held that the  ratio  of
\nthe decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax  v.
\nRanchhodas Karsondas(1) governed the present case.
\nMr.   Rajagopala  Sastri,  the\tlearned\t counsel   for\t the
\nappellant, submits that the return was not voluntary and  as
\nit was made in pursuance of an invalid notice, must also  be
\ntreated\t as  invalid.  He says that no assessment  could  be
\nmade  on  its  basis.\tHe further says\t that  the  case  of
\nRanchhodas Karsondas(1) is distinguishable.
\nThe learned counsel for the assessee raises an objection  to
\nthis  new point being urgred at this stage.  He\t points\t out
\nthat  in the statement of the case, filed in this  Court  on
\nbehalf of the appellant, one proposition of law is Put thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  notice  issued  on 3rd  April  1948\t and
\n\t      return filed on 4th September 1948 being valid
\n\t      the proceedings thus initiated came to an\t end
\n\t      on  27th\tOctober,  1950, and  there  were  no
\n\t      proceedings pending when the second notice was
\n\t      issued on 27th February, 1953.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This Proposition, he says, admits that the return was valid.
\nOn  the\t merits he has supported the reasoning of  the\tHigh
\nCourt and
\n(1)  [1960 1 S.C.R. 114.\n<\/p>\n
886<\/span><\/p>\n
added  that in this case assessment could have been made  by
\nthe  Income  Tax Officer till March 31, 1949, under  s.\t 23,
\ntreating the return as one made under S. 22.
\nIn  our,opinion the appellant is not raising any new  point.
\nIt is true that in the above cited proposition the appellant
\nsays that the return is valid but this follows the assertion
\nthat  the  notice  issued on April 3,  1948  is\t valid.\t  In
\nanother\t part  of the statement of the\tcase,  however,\t the
\nappellant states that “the return was not a voluntary return
\nand,  therefore, could not be regarded as a return on  which
\nvalid  assessment could be made, the case was one  where  no
\nreturn\thad been filed and was also one where income  had  I
\nescaped\t assessment.   Clause  (a)  of\tsection\t 34(1)\t was
\ntherefore; applicable and the second notice under section 34
\nwas given within, the period allowed by law”.
\nThe short question which arises in this case is whether the;
\nreturn\tdated  September 4, 1948, can be  treated  as  valid
\nreturn\tunder s. 22(3) of the Act.  Section 22(3) is in\t the
\nfollowing terms :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “22(3).\tIf  any person has not\tfurnished  a
\n\t      return  within  the time allowed by  or  under
\n\t      sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), or  having
\n\t      furnished a return under either of those\tsub-
\n\t      sections,\t discovers  any\t omission  or  wrong
\n\t      statement therein, he may furnish a return  or
\n\t      a\t revised return, as the case may be, at\t any
\n\t      time before the assessment is made.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 22(3) permits an assessee to furnish a return at any
\ntime before the assessment is made.  By virtue of S.  34(3),
\nas  it\tstood in 1949, assessment could have  been  made  at
\nleast  up  to  March  31, 1949, if  the\t return\t was  valid.
\nTherefore,  it may be implied, as laid down in\tS.  Santosha
\nNadar  v. First Additional Income-Tax Officer,\tTuticorin(1)
\nand Commissioner of Income-Tax Bombay City II v.  Bhagwandas
\nAmersey<\/a>(1)  that  the return must be filed before  the\ttime
\nmentioned   in\tS.  34(3).   This  condition  is,   however,
\nsatisfied in this case.\t Mr. Sastri says that it is  further
\nimplicit in s. 22(3) that the return must be voluntary.\t  We
\nare  unable  to appreciate that every return made  under  S.
\n22(3) must be a voluntary return, in the sense that it\tmust
\nbe suo motu.  If a return is made in pursuance to a  general
\nnotice\tunder s. 22(1), or a special notice under s.  22(2),
\nit  is\ta return made voluntary but not suo motu.  It  is  a
\nreturn\tmade  in response to a public notice  or  a  special
\nnotice.\t If no return is made in response to notices
\n(1) (1961) 421 T.R. 715
\n(2) (1963)50 I.T.R. 239
\n887<\/span>
\nunder  s.  22(1),  and s. 22(2), the  Act  attaches  certain
\npenalties. in our view, it is not correct first to  describe
\na  return made under s. 22(3) in response to a notice  under
\ns.  22(1)  or  s. 22(2) as Voluntary, and then\tsay  that  a
\nreturn\tmade  in  response to a notice under s.\t 34  is\t not
\nvoluntary  just\t because  it warns the\tassessee  that\tsome
\nincome\thas escaped assessment.\t In our opinion, both  types
\nof returns are under s. 22(3) of the Act.  In the first type
\nof cases it is directly under s. 22(3).\t In case of a notice
\nunder  s. 34, it is deemed to be notice under s.  22(2)\t and
\nthe  return deemed to be a return under s. 22(3).  From\t the
\nlanguage  of s. 22(3), we are unable to say that the  return
\ndated September 4, 1948, was not a return within s. 22(3).
\nMr. Sastri however, says that this Court proceeded on a con-
\ntrary view in Commissioner of Income-tax Bihar and Orissa V.
\nMaharaja  Pratap Singh Bahadur of Gidhaur<\/a>(1).  Let  us\tthen
\nsee  what  was decided by this Court.  Shortly\tstated,\t the
\nfacts in that case were that the Maharajah had\tagricultural
\nincome\tand interest received by him on arrears of rent\t for
\nthe  four assessment years 1944-45 to 1947-48.\t The  lncome
\nTax  authorities  did not include in his  assessable  income
\ninterest  received by him on arrears of rent on\t the  ground
\nthat  it was agricultural income.  This view was held to  be
\nwrong  by the Privy Council.  The Income Tax Officer  issued
\nnotices under s. 34 on August 8, 1948, without obtaining the
\napproval of the Commissioner.  Section 34 was amended by the
\nIncome-Tax  Business  Profits  Tax  (Amendment)\t Act,\t1948
\n(XLVIII of 1948).  Assessments were made on the basis of the
\nabove  notices dated August 3, 1948.  The question  referred
\nto the High Court was: “Whether in the circumstances of\t the
\ncase assessment proceedings were validly initiated under  s.
\n34 of the Indian Income Tax Act”.  This Court held that:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “As  the\tAmending Act repealed  the  original
\n\t      section 34 not from the day it was promulgated
\n\t      but from an earlier date, March 30, 1948,\t and
\n\t      substituted in its place the reenacted section
\n\t      containing the proviso, and provided that\t the
\n\t      reenacted section shall be deemed to have come
\n\t      into force with retrospective effect on  March
\n\t      30, 1948, the application of section 6 of\t the
\n\t      General  Clauses\tAct was\t excluded.   As\t the
\n\t      notices were, all issued on August 8, 1948, at
\n\t      a time when on the statute book must be deemed
\n\t      to  be existing a provision enjoining  a\tduty
\n\t      upon  the\t Income Tax Officer  to\t record\t his
\n\t      reasons and
\n\t      (1)   [1961] 2 S.C.R. 760.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      888<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      submit  for the approval of  the\tCommissioner
\n\t      before issuing notice under section 34, unless
\n\t      that  approval was obtained the notices  could
\n\t      not  be  issued.\tThe notices  issued  by\t the
\n\t      Income-Tax Officer without complying with\t the
\n\t      conditions laid down in the proviso to section
\n\t      34(1)  as\t re-enacted were  invalid,  and\t the
\n\t      entire   proceedings  for\t reassessment\twere
\n\t      illegal.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  view  of the question referred to the High\tCourt,\tthis
\nCourt  was  not really concerned with the  validity  of\t the
\nreturns\t made, but Mr. Sastri relies on certain\t observation
\nmade  by the High Court and this Court.\t When the  reference
\nwas  before the Patna High Court in Commissioner of  Income-
\nTax,  Bihar and Orissa v. Maharaja Pratap Singh\t Bahadur<\/a>(1),
\nthe  learned  counsel had contended that it  was  physically
\nimpossible  for\t the Income Tax Officer to comply  with\t the
\nrequirements  of the amended s. 34 on August 8,\t 1948.\t The
\nHigh  Court, regarding this contention, observed  that\t“the
\nargument  is correct, but the Income Tax Department was\t not
\nprejudiced  because  notices under s. 34 could\tbe  reissued
\nafter  the 8th of September, the date of the  Amending\tAct,
\nand  after  complying with the requirements of\tthe  amended
\nsection\t 34”.\tThis  Court, in the appeal  from  the  above
\ndecision,  after  holding  that the  notices  were  invalid,
\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Indeed,\tthere  was  time  enough  for  fresh
\n\t      notices  to have been issued, and we  fail  to
\n\t      see why the old notices were not recalled\t and
\n\t      fresh ones issued.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
These  observations certainly show that this  Court  assumed
\nthat fresh notices could have been issued in that case.\t Mr.
\nSastri\tsays that the Department has done exactly  what\t the
\nSupreme\t Court indicated in that case should be done.\tBut,
\napart  from  the  fact that there is no\t discussion  on\t the
\nquestion  of the validity of the return, it is\tpossible  to
\nsay that on the facts in that case fresh notices could\thave
\nbeen  issued.\tIn Maharajah Pratap Singh,  s(2)  case,\t the
\nMaharajah had filed returns for four assessment years  1944-
\n45 to 1947-48 under s. 22, and assessments had been made but
\nthe  income  of\t the assessee with  regard  to\tinterest  on
\narrears of rent was not included.  His returns in  pursuance
\nto  a  notice under s. 34 could not be treated as  a  return
\nunder s. 22(3) because he had already filed returns and\t was
\nnot  purporting to revise his previous returns.\t But in\t the
\npresent case the assessee had never filed a return under  s.\n<\/p>\n
22.  The first return he filed was in response to
\n(1) [1956] 30 I.T.R. 484.\n<\/p>\n
(2) (1961) 2 S.C.R. 760.\n<\/p>\n
notice under s. 34, but he could have filed this return even
\nwithout a notice under s. 34, for the four years  prescribed
\nby s. 34(3).ad not expired.\n<\/p>\n
This  Court  in Commissioner of Income-tax  Bombay  City  v.
\nRanchhoddas  Karsondas<\/a>(1) held that a return showing  income
\nbelow  taxable\tlimit was a good return and the\t Income\t Tax
\nOfficer\t could not choose to ignore the return and  issue  a
\nnotice under s. 34, Hidayatullah J., speaking for the Court,
\nobserved  that “it is a little difficult to  understand\t how
\nthe existence of a return can be ignored once it is  filed”.
\nBut this case is not of much help in Determining whether the
\nreturn\tin this case is a good return within s.22(3) of\t the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  Sastri further contends that if the notice under s.  34
\nis  held to be bad, it must follow that the return  made  in
\npursuance  of  it  must\t also be treated  as  bad.   We\t are
\nsatisfied  that\t there is no substance in  this\t contention.
\nThe  decision of the Calcutta High Court in R. K. Das &\t Co.
\nv.  Commissioner  of  Income-Tax  West\tBengal(1)  certainly
\nsupports  Mr. Sastri’s contention but, with respect, we\t are
\nunable to agree with the reasoning of the High Court.  Apart
\nfrom  the  fact\t that this Court did  not  approve  of\tthis
\ndecision  in Ranchhoddas Karsondas’s case(“), we are  unable
\nto  appreciate that if the Income Tax Officer had based\t his
\nassessment on the return treating it to be a return under s.
\n22(3). the assessment would not stand a moment’s scrutiny.
\nWe  think that some confusion has crept into this branch  of
\nthe  Income  Tax  Law by the use  of  the  words  ‘voluntary
\nreturn’ and a’ non-voluntary  return’.\tSection\t 22(3)\tdoes
\nnot use this expression and whatever the impelling cause  or
\nmotive\tif a return otherwise valid is filed by an  assessee
\nbefore\tthe receipt of a valid notice under s. 34, it is  to
\nbe  treated as a return within s. 22(3) for it falls  within
\nthe language of the sub-section.\n<\/p>\n
In the result we agree with the High Court that the question
\nreferred to the High Court must be answered in the negative.
\nAccordingly we dismiss the appeal with costs.
\nAppeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1960] 1 S.C.R. 114.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1956] 30 I. T.R. 439.\n<\/p>\n
890<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs S. Raman Chettiar on 27 October, 1964 Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 1031, 1965 SCR (1) 883 Author: S Sikri Bench: Sikri, S.M. PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS Vs. RESPONDENT: S. RAMAN CHETTIAR DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/10\/1964 BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. SUBBARAO, K. SHAH, J.C. […]<\/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-11030","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs S. Raman Chettiar on 27 October, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-raman-chettiar-on-27-october-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs S. Raman Chettiar on 27 October, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-raman-chettiar-on-27-october-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1964-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-16T00:18:35+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-raman-chettiar-on-27-october-1964#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-raman-chettiar-on-27-october-1964\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs S. Raman Chettiar on 27 October, 1964\",\"datePublished\":\"1964-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-16T00:18:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-raman-chettiar-on-27-october-1964\"},\"wordCount\":2487,\"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\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-raman-chettiar-on-27-october-1964#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-raman-chettiar-on-27-october-1964\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-raman-chettiar-on-27-october-1964\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs S. Raman Chettiar on 27 October, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1964-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-16T00:18:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-raman-chettiar-on-27-october-1964#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-raman-chettiar-on-27-october-1964\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-raman-chettiar-on-27-october-1964#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs S. Raman Chettiar on 27 October, 1964\"}]},{\"@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":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs S. Raman Chettiar on 27 October, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-raman-chettiar-on-27-october-1964","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs S. Raman Chettiar on 27 October, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-raman-chettiar-on-27-october-1964","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1964-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-16T00:18:35+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-raman-chettiar-on-27-october-1964#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-raman-chettiar-on-27-october-1964"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs S. Raman Chettiar on 27 October, 1964","datePublished":"1964-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-16T00:18:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-raman-chettiar-on-27-october-1964"},"wordCount":2487,"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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-raman-chettiar-on-27-october-1964#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-raman-chettiar-on-27-october-1964","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-raman-chettiar-on-27-october-1964","name":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs S. Raman Chettiar on 27 October, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1964-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-16T00:18:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-raman-chettiar-on-27-october-1964#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-raman-chettiar-on-27-october-1964"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-raman-chettiar-on-27-october-1964#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs S. Raman Chettiar on 27 October, 1964"}]},{"@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\/11030","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=11030"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11030\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11030"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11030"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11030"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}