{"id":118614,"date":"1967-12-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-12-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sankappa-and-others-vs-the-income-tax-officer-central-on-14-december-1967"},"modified":"2016-12-13T22:53:03","modified_gmt":"2016-12-13T17:23:03","slug":"s-sankappa-and-others-vs-the-income-tax-officer-central-on-14-december-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sankappa-and-others-vs-the-income-tax-officer-central-on-14-december-1967","title":{"rendered":"S. Sankappa And Others vs The Income-Tax Officer, Central … on 14 December, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
S. Sankappa And Others vs The Income-Tax Officer, Central … on 14 December, 1967<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 816, \t\t 1968 SCR (2) 674<\/div>\n
Author: V Bhargava<\/div>\n
Bench: Bhargava, Vishishtha<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nS. SANKAPPA AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE II,BANGALORE\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n14\/12\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\nBENCH:\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\nSHAH, J.C.\nRAMASWAMI, V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1968 AIR  816\t\t  1968 SCR  (2) 674\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1973 SC1010\t (2)\n RF\t    1977 SC 459\t (1,6)\n RF\t    1991 SC1322\t (23)\n\n\nACT:\nIncome\tTax Act, 1922, ss. 23, 35-Income Tax Act, 1961,\t ss.\n155 297(2) (a) -Whether proceedings on issue of notice under\ns.  35\t(5)  of\t the  Act  of  1922  for  rectification\t are\nproceedings  for assessment within the meaning of s.  297(2)\n(a) of the Act of 1961.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nDuring\tthe assessment 'years 1958-59, 1959-60 and  1960-61,\ntwo  firms in which the six appellants were partners,  filed\nreturns declaring themselves to be registered firms and also\npresented  applications for registration of the firms  under\ns. 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922.  The Income-tax  Officer\nrefused registration of the firms and assessed the income of\nthe  firms, treating them as unregistered.  The\t assessments\nof the six appellants were also made, so that their  incomes\nfrom  the  two\tfirms  were  included  in  their  individual\nassessments  as\t if  they had received\tthe  income  in\t the\ncapacity of partners in unregistered firms.  Appeals made by\nthe  firms  against  the order\trefusing  registration\twere\nallowed\t by  the Appellate Assistant Commissioner  -and,  in\npursuance  of the appellate orders, the Income\tTax  Officer\npassed a consolidated order on 20th December, 1966, revising\nthe  assessments  of the firms for all these  years  on\t the\nbasis  that they were registered firms and also\t apportioned\nthe   income  of  the  firm,;  between\tthe  six   partners.\nSubsequently, the Income Tax Officer issued notices under s.\n155  of the Income Tax Act, 1961, proposing to\trectify\t the\nindividual  assessments of the six appellants in respect  of\neach of the three assessment years, whereupon the appellants\nchallenged  the validity of the notices by  writ  petitions.\nIt  was\t conceded  before the High Court on  behalf  of\t the\nIncome\tTax  Officer  that  as\tthe  rectification  proposed\nrelated\t to assessment years when the Income Tax Act,  1922,\nwas  applicable, proceedings for rectification could not  be\ntaken  under s. 155 of the 1961 Act but only under s.  35(5)\nof the 1922 Act in view of the provisions of Is. 297 (2) (a)\nof the Act of 1961.  The High Court dismissed the petitions.\nIn -appeal to this Court it was contended, inter alia,\tthat\nproceedings  for rectification under s. 35(5) of the Act  of\n1922 cannot be held to be proceedings for assessment  within\nthe  meaning of that expression used in s. 297(2)(a) of\t the\nAct of 1961, and therefore under that provision of law,\t the\nAct  of\t 1922  could not be resorted to\t by  the  Income-tax\nOfficer\t  in  order  to\t rectify  the  assessments  of\t the\nappellant; that, in any case, the provisions of s, 35(5)  of\nthe Act of 1922 are not attracted. because proceedings under\nthat  section,\tcan only be taken when it is  found  on\t the\nassessment  or reassesment of a firm that the share  of\t the\npartner\t in  the  profit or loss of the firm  has  not\tbeen\nincluded  in the assessment of the partner or, if  included,\nis  not\t correct, and, in the present cases,  there  was  no\nassessment or reassessment of the firms when the  income-tax\nOfficer,  in pursuance of the appellate order, proceeded  to\npass orders rectifying the assessments-of the firms under s.\n35(1) of the Act of 1922; as there was no fresh\t computation\nof  income  the\t proceedings sought to\tbe  taken  were\t not\nproceedings for assessment.\nHELD : Dismissing the appeal\n675\n(1)  the word \"assessment\" is used in the Income-tax Act  in\na number of provisions in a comprehensive sense and includes\nall  proceedings, starting with the filing of the return  or\nissue  of  notice and ending with determination of  the\t tax\npayable\t by  the assessee., When proceedings are  taken\t for\nrectification of assessment to tax either under s. 35(1)  or\ns.  35(5)  of  the  Act of 1922, they must  be\theld  to  be\nproceedings  for  assessment.\tIn  proceeding\tunder  those\nprovisions,  what the Income-tax Officer does is to  correct\nerrors in, or rectify orders of assessment made by him,\t and\norders\t making\t such  correction  or  rectifications\tare,\ntherefore  clearly part of the proceedings  for\t assessment.\n[678 B, G-H]\nThe  orders passed under s. 35(1) by the Income-tax  Officer\non  20th December, 1966 were all orders altering  assessment\norders made in the proceedings for assessment of the  firms,\nwhile, under the impugned notices the Income-tax Officer was\nproposing  to rectify orders made for computation of  income\nand imposition of tax under the charging section in the case\nof individual partners.\t Clearly, therefore, in these cases,\ns.  297(2)  (a) of the Act of 1961  permits  the  Income-tax\nOfficer to proceed in accordance with the provisions of\t the\nAct  of\t 1922  and he had rightly proposed  to\ttake  action\ntinder s. 35(5) of the Act of 1922. [679 E-G]\nAbraham v. Income-tax Officer, 41 I.T.R. 425; Kalawati\tDevi\nHarlalka  v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, West  Bengal  &\nOrs,  Civil  Appeal No.<\/a> 1421 of 1966  decided  on  1-5-1967,\nrelied on.\nM,  M.\tParikli,  Income,   Officer,  Special  Investigation\nCircle\t\"B\" Ahmedabad v. Navanagar Transport and  Industries\nLtd. and Another, 63 I.T.R. 663, distinguished.\nThe  provisions of s. 23 and other relevant sections of\t the\nAct of 1922 clearly show that proceedings for assessment  of\na  firm consist of computation of the income of\t the  firms,\ndetermination of tax payable by the firms, apportionment  of\nthe income of the firm between its partners in the case of a\nregistered firm and, in appropriate cases, imposition of tax\non  the\t firm  after including the share of  the  income  of\ncertain partners in, the income of the firm, even though the\nfirm  is registered.  The proceedings for assessment of\t the\nfirm are not completed until all these steps have been taken\nby  the Income-tax Officer, and each of those steps must  be\nheld  to be a step in the proceedings for assessment of\t the\nfirm.  Consequently, when the Income-tax Officer passed\t the\norders\tdated 20th December 1966 and apportioned the  income\nof the firms between the various partners, the orders  which\nbe  made were clearly orders in proceedings  for  assessment\nand  it was in order to give effect to these orders  in\t the\nindividual  assessment,\t of the partners that  the  impugned\nnotices were issued.  The first condition precedent that the\nproceedings  under s. 35(4) are to be taken on the basis  of\ninformation  derived  from  orders  of\tassessment  or\t re-\nassessment of the firm was, thus clearly satisfied. [682  B-\nE]\nV.   S.\t Arulanandam  v. Income-tax Officer,  Tuticorin,  43\nI.T.R. 511, it p. 517: distinguished.\nThe  second  condition precedent was also satisfied  as\t the\nshare of each partner in the profit or loss of the firm\t was\nnot  included  in  the assessment of  the  partner  for\t the\npurpose\t of  assessment\t of that share\tto  tax.   Inclusion\ncontemplated  by  s. 35(5) is for assessment to tax  of\t the\nshare.\tIn fact, the inclusion was for the, limited purposes\nof  determining\t the exemption to which\t the  partners\twere\nentitled  under s. 14(2)(a) and for determining the rate  of\ntax  payable in the separate assessments under s,  16(1)(a).\nWhen  the  assessments of the unregistered  firms  were\t set\naside, the individual partners ceased to be entitled to\t the\nbenefit of\nL2Sup.C.1\/68---13\n676\ns. 14(2)(a), and    s.\t16(1) (a) also become  inapplicable.\nWhat was required to be done  was to add the income of\teach\npartner in his individual assessment and then impose tax  on\nit in accordance with s. 23(5) (a) (ii) of the Act of  1922.\nThus, this was a clear case where the inclusion of the share\nof  the income of the partner in his  individual  assessment\nwas not correct. [683 F-H 684 B-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos.  1664  to
\n1681 of 1967.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals\t front the judgment and order dated August  30,\t 31,
\n1967 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 354  to
\n371 of 1967.\n<\/p>\n
K.   Srinivasan and R. Gopalakrishnan for the appellants (in
\nall the appeals).\n<\/p>\n
C.   K.\t Daphtary  Attorney-General, S. K.  Aiyar and R.  N.
\nSachthey, for the respondent (in all the appeals).
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nBhargava,  J. These eighteen appeals have been filed by\t six
\npersons,  some of whom were partners in a firm\tcalled\t“The
\nLalitha Silk Throwing Factory”, some in another firm  called
\n“The Srinivasa Textiles”, and some in both these firms.\t The
\nappeals\t brought up to this Court under certificate  -ranted
\nby the High Court of Mysore are against the judgment of\t the
\nHigh  Court dismissing eighteen writ petitions by these\t six
\nappellants  praying  for  quashing  notices  issued  by\t the
\nIncome-tax  Officer,  Bangalore,  purporting  to  be   under
\nsection 155 of the Income-tax Act No. 43 of 1961,  proposing
\nto  rectify the assessments of the appellants in respect  of
\nthe  assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and  1960-61.   Thus,
\nthe  notices challenged are three notices for each of  these
\nassessment years in respect of each of the six appellants  ,
\nso that there were 18 petitions before the High Court.\t The
\nHigh  Court decided all the petitions by a  common  judgment
\nand,  conscequently in these appeals, all of them are  being
\ndealt with together.\n<\/p>\n
During all these three assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and
\n1960-61,  both the firms filed returns declaring  themselves
\nto be registered firms\t and also presented applications for
\nregistration of the firms tinder   s. 26A of the  Income-tax
\nAct No. 11 of 1922. The Income-tax Office\t     refused
\nregistration  of  the firms and assessed the income  of\t the
\nfirms,\ttreating them as unregistered.\tThe  assessments  of
\nthese  six appellants were also made, so that their  incomes
\nfrom  the  two\tfirms  were  included  in  their  individual
\nassessments  as\t if  they had received\tthe  income  in\t the
\ncapacity of partners in unregistered firms.  The firms\twent
\nup  in appeal against the order,, of the Income-tax  Officer
\nrefusing  registration.\t These appeals were allowed  by\t the
\nAppellate Assistant Commis-\n<\/p>\n
677<\/span><\/p>\n
sioner\tby an order dated 26th November, 1966 in respect  of
\nthe Lalitha Silk Throwing Factory, and 14th December,  ‘1966
\nin  respect of Srinivasa Textiles.  The Income-tax  Officer,
\nin  pursuance  of  the\tappellate  order  of  the  Assistant
\nCommissioner,  passed  a  consolidated\torder  revising\t the
\nassessments  of the firms for all these years on  the  basis
\nthat  they  were registered firms and also  apportioned\t the
\nincome\t of   the   firms  between   these   six   partners.
\nSubsequently,  the notices impugned in these petitions\twere
\nissued\ton.  19th  January,  1967,  whereby  the  Income-tax
\nOfficer\t proposed to rectify the individual  assessments  of
\nthe six appellants in respect of each of the three years  of
\nassessment  under  section  155 of the\tAct  of\t 1961.\t The
\nappellants in the writ petitions challenged the validity  of
\nthese  notices,\t but  the  High\t Court\tdismissed  the\twrit
\npetitions and, consequently, the appellants have come up  in
\nthese appeals before us.\n<\/p>\n
It  was\t conceded  before the High Court on  behalf  of\t the
\nIncome tax Officer that proceedings for rectification of the
\nassessments  of the appellants could not be taken  under  s.
\n155   of   the\tAct  of\t 1961,\tbecause,   admittedly,\t the
\nrectifications related to assessments of tax for  assessment
\nyears  when  the  Act  of  1922\t was  applicable,  so\tthat
\nproceedings could only be taken under s. 3 5 (5 ) of the Act
\nof 1 922 in view of the provisions of s. 297 (2) (a) of\t the
\nAct of 1961.  Before us, learned counsel for the  appellants
\nurged that .proceedings for rectification under s. 35(5)  of
\nthe  Act  of  1922  cannot be held  to\tbe  proceedings\t for
\nassessment within the meaning of that expression used in  s.
\n297(2) (a) of the Act of 1961, so that, under that provision
\nof  law,  the Act of 1922 could not be resorted\t to  by\t the
\nIncome-tax  Officer in order to rectify the  assessments  of
\nthe  appellants.   On the same basis, it was  further  urged
\nthat, in any case, the provisions of s. 35(5) of the Act  of
\n1922  are  not\tattracted, because  proceedings\t under\tthat
\nsection can only be taken when it is found on the assessment
\nor  reassessment of a firm that the share of the partner  in
\nthe profit or loss of the firm has not been included in\t the
\nassessment  of the partner or, if included, is not  correct;
\nand,  in  the  present cases, there  was  no  assessment  or
\nreassessment  of the firms when the Income-tax\tOfficer,  in
\npursuance   of\t the  order  of\t the   Appellate   Assistant
\nCommissioner  granting registration to the firms,  proceeded
\nto pass orders rectifying the assessments of the firms under
\ns.  35 ( 1 ) of the Act of 1922 on 20th December, 1966.\t  It
\nwas  urged  that  no  fresh computation\t of  income  of\t the
\npartners  is sought to be made in pursuance of\tthe  notices
\nissued and, similarly, no fresh computation of the income of
\nthe  firms was made when the Income-tax Officer\t passed\t his
\norders on 20th December, 1966 to give effect to the decision
\nof    the   Appellate\tAssistant   Commissioner    granting
\nregistration  to the firms.  No fresh computation of  income
\nbeing  involved,  it must be held that the  proceedings\t now
\nsought to be taken are not
\n678<\/span>
\nproceedings  for assessment, and, similarly, no\t proceedings
\nfor assessment or reassessment were taken by the  Income-tax
\nOfficer\t when he passed his orders on 20th  December,  1966.
\nThis  submission, in our opinion, has been rightly  rejected
\nby the High Court, because it has already been explained  by
\nthis Court that the word “assessment” is used in the Income-
\ntax  Act in a number of provisions in a comprehensive  sense
\nand  includes all proceedings, starting with the  filing  of
\nthe return or issue of notice and ending with  determination
\nof  the\t tax  payable  by  the\tassessee.   Though  in\tsome
\nsections, the word “assessment” is used only with  reference
\nto computation of income, in other sections it has the\tmore
\ncomprehensive meaning mentioned by us above.  Reference\t may
\nbe made to the decision of this Court in Abraham v.  Income-
\ntax  Officer(1).   The\tsame  principle\t has  been  recently
\nreiterated  in\tthe case of Katawati Devi  Harlalka  v.\t The
\nCommissioner  of Income-tax, West Bengal & Ors.<\/a>\t (-)  where.
\ndealing\t with the word “assessment” used -in s. 297  of\t the
\nAct of 1961, the Court held
\n\t      “It is quite clear from the authorities  cited
\n\t      above  that the word ‘assessment’ can  bear  a
\n\t      very  comprehensive meaning it can  comprehend
\n\t      the  whole  procedure  for  ascertaining\t and
\n\t      imposing\tliability  upon\t the  taxpayer.\t  Is
\n\t      there  then anything in the context of S.\t 297
\n\t      which  compels  us to give to  the  expression
\n\t      ‘procedure  for the assessment’  the  narrower
\n\t      meaning  suggested by the learned counsel\t for
\n\t      the  appellant  ? In our view, the  answer  to
\n\t      this  question  must be in the  negative.\t  It
\n\t      seems to us that s. 297 is meant to provide as
\n\t      far  as possible for all\tcontingencies  which
\n\t      may  arise out of the repeal of the 1922\tAct.
\n\t      It deals with pending appeals, revisions, etc.
\n\t      It   deals  with\t non-completed\t assessments
\n\t      pending  at the commencement of the  1961\t Act
\n\t      and   assessments\t  to  be  made\t after\t the
\n\t      commencement  of the 1961 Act as a  result  of
\n\t      returns of income filed after the commencement
\n\t      of the 1961 Act,”\n<\/p>\n
It   is\t  clear\t that,\twhen  proceedings  are\t taken\t for
\nrectification of assessment to tax either under s. 35(1)  or
\ns. 35(5) of the Act of 1922, those proceedings must be\theld
\nto be proceedings for assessment.  In proceeding under those
\nprovisions,  what the Income-tax Officer does is to  correct
\nerrors in, or rectify orders of assessment made by him,\t and
\norders\tmaking\tsuch  corrections  or  rectifications\tare,
\ntherefore, clearly part of the proceedings for assessment.
\n(1)  41\t I.T.R.\t 425.  (2) Civil Appeal\t No.  1421  of\t1966
\ndecided on 1.5.1967.\n<\/p>\n
67 9
\nThe   main stay of the argument of learned counsel  for\t the
\nappellants against this view was the decision of this  Court
\nin  M. M. Parikh, Income-tax Officer, Special  Investigation
\nCircle “B”, Ahmedabad v. Navanagar Transport and  Industries
\nLtd. and Another(1) in which case the Court was dealing with
\nthe question whether an order imposing additional  super-tax
\nunder  s. 23A of the Act of 1922 was an order of  assessment
\nand  held to the contrary.  The decision in that  case\tdoes
\nnot,  in our opinion, support the submission made on  behalf
\nof  the appellants in the present cases.  It  was  explained
\nthere  that, under s. 23A of the Act of 1922, there  was  no
\ncomputation of income or determination of tax imposed by the
\ncharging  section.   That section by  itself  empowered\t the
\nIncome-tax Officer to impose the super-tax by his own order,
\nand an order imposing such a tax could not be held to be  an
\norder  of  assessment.\tFurther examples of  similar  orders
\nwere  cited  in that case and reference was made  to  orders
\nunder  ss.  18A(l), 35(9), 35(10) and 35(11) of the  Act  of
\n1922.\tAfter  referring  to  these  provisions,  the  Court
\nclearly\t indicated the reason for holding  that\t proceedings
\nunder  those provisions were not proceedings for  assessment
\nof tax by stating :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The salient feature of these and other orders
\n\t      is  that the liability to pay tax\t arises\t not
\n\t      from  the charge created by statute, but\tfrom
\n\t      the order of the Income-tax Officer.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  the present cases the orders, which have been  rectified
\nor  are\t being taken up for rectification,  are\t all  orders
\nunder\twhich\tthere\twas  assessment\t  of   incomes\t and
\ndetermination  of the charge to tax in accordance  with\t the
\ncharging  sections.  The orders passed under s. 3 5  (1)  by
\nthe  Income-tax\t Officer  on 20th December,  1966  were\t all
\norders\taltering assessment orders made in  the\t proceedings
\nfor  assessment\t of  the firms,\t while\tunder  the  impugned
\nnotices\t the  Income-tax  Officer is  proposing\t to  rectify
\norders made for computation of income and imposition of\t tax
\nunder  the  charging  section  in  the\tcase  of  individual
\npartners.   Clearly, therefore, in these cases, s.  297\t (2)\n<\/p>\n
(a)  of the Act of 1961. permits the Income-tax\t Officer  to
\nproceed in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1922
\nand he has Tightly proposed to take action under s. 35(5) of
\nthe Act of 1922 on. the basis of rectifications made in\t the
\nassessment-,  of  the firms under s. 35 (1) of that  Act  on
\n20th  December,\t 1966 in pursuance of the  appellate  orders
\ngranting registration to the firms.\n<\/p>\n
The second point raised by learned counsel was that, in\t any
\ncase, the orders actually made by the Income-tax Officer  on
\n20th  December, 1966 in the cases of these firms  cannot  be
\nheld  to  be  orders of assessment,  because  all  that\t the
\nIncome-tax Officer did
\n(1)  63 I.T.R. 663.\n<\/p>\n
680<\/span><\/p>\n
and was required to do in order to give effect to the orders
\nof    the   Appellate\tAssistant   Commissioner    granting
\nregistration  was  to re-calculate the tax  payable  by\t the
\nfirms  under s. 23 (5) (a) of the Act of 1922, and  such  an
\norder would not be an order of assessment at all.  Copies of
\nthe  orders actually passed by the Income-tax Officer  under
\ns. 3 5 (1) in the cases of both the firms have been produced
\nbefore us.  They show that the orders consist of two  parts.
\nIn  the\t first part, the tax payable by the  firms  was\t re-
\ncalculated on the basis that the firms were registered firms
\nand  refund was allowed, because a larger amount of tax\t bad
\nbeen   assessed\t  and  realised,  treating  the\t  firms\t  as
\nunregistered.\tIn the second part, the share income of\t the
\nassessee  firms was allocated between the various  partners.
\nIt  appears to us that this composite  order  re-determining
\nthe   tax  payable  by\tthe  firms  directing\trefund\t and
\napportioning  the income of the firms between  the  partners
\ncan  be\t held  to be nothing other than\t an  order  made  in
\nproceedings for assessment of the firms.
\nUnder  the  Act of 1 922, the assessment of a firm  is\tmade
\ntinder s. 23 (5) which is as follows
\n\t      “23(5).\tNothwithstanding anything  contained
\n\t      in
\n\t      the   foregoing subsections, when the assessee
\n\t      is a firm
\n\t      and   the\t total income of the firm  has\tbeen
\n\t      assessed under
\n\t      sub-section  (1),\t sub-section  (3)  or\tsub-
\n\t      section (4), as the case may be.–\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   in the case of a registered firm,\n<\/p>\n
\t      (i)   the\t income-tax  payable  by  the\tfirm
\n\t      itself shall be determined; and\n<\/p>\n
\t      (ii)  the total income of each partner of\t the
\n\t      firm,  including\ttherein\t his  share  of\t its
\n\t      income,  profits\tand gains  of  the  previous
\n\t      year, shall be assessed and the sum payable by
\n\t      him  on the basis of such assessment shall  be
\n\t      determined :\n<\/p>\n
\t      Provided that if such share of any partner  is
\n\t      a\t loss it shall be set off against his  other
\n\t      income  or  carried  forward and\tset  off  in
\n\t      accordance with the provisions of section 24 :
\n\t      Provided\t further  that\twhen  any  of\tsuch
\n\t      partners\tis  a  person not  resident  in\t the
\n\t      taxable territories, his share of the  income,
\n\t      profits  and  gains  of  the  firm  shall\t  be
\n\t      assessed or ‘the firm at the rates which would
\n\t      be  applicable  if  it were  assessed  on\t him
\n\t      personally,  and\tthe  sum  so  determined  as
\n\t      payable shall be paid by the firm;\n<\/p>\n
\t      681<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      provided\t also  that  it’  at  the  time\t  of
\n\t      assessment  of  any partner  of  a  registered
\n\t      firm,  the  Income-tax Officer is\t of  opinion
\n\t      that the partner is residing in Pakistan,\t the
\n\t      partner’s\t share\tof the income,\tprofits\t and
\n\t      gains of the him shall be assessed on the firm
\n\t      in  the  manner laid down\t in  the  preceding,
\n\t      proviso  and the sum so determined as  payable
\n\t      shall be, paid by the firm; and\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   in the case of an unregistered firm, the
\n\t      Income-tax Officer may, instead of determining
\n\t      the  sum payable by the firm itself,  -proceed
\n\t      to assess the total income of each partner  of
\n\t      the firm, including therein, his share of\t its
\n\t      income,  profits\tand gains  of  the  previous
\n\t      year,  and determine the tax payable  by\teach
\n\t      partner  on the basis of such assessment,\t if,
\n\t      in  the  Income-tax  Officer’s  opinion,\t the
\n\t      aggregate amount of the tax. including  super-
\n\t\t\t    tax, if any, payable by the partners u
\nnder such
\n\t      procedure would be greater than the  aggregate
\n\t      amount which would be payable by the firm\t and
\n\t      the   partners  individually,  if\t  separately
\n\t      assessed; and where the procedure specified in
\n\t      this  clause  is applied to  any\tunregistered
\n\t      firm, the provisos to clause (a) of this\tsub-
\n\t      section shall apply thereto its they apply  in
\n\t      the case of a registered firm.”\n<\/p>\n
It  will  be noticed that., under  this\t provision,  various
\norders\thave to be made by the Income-tax Officer.   In\t the
\ncase  of  a registered firm, the Income-tax  Officer,  after
\ncomputing  the income, has to determine the tax\t payable  by
\nthe firm itself, and provision is made that, thereafter, the
\nshare  in  the income of the firm of each partner is  to  be
\nincluded in his total income for purposes of his  individual
\nassessment  to tax.  It is true that the Income-tax  Officer
\nassessing  the firm may not be the same Officer who  may  be
\ndealing with the individual assessment of the partners\tand,
\nin  any case, even if he be the same Officer, the proceeding
\nfor  assessment\t of  the partners has to  be  treated  as  a
\nseparate   proceeding;\tbut  it\t is  also  clear  that\t the
\nproceedings for assessment of the firm under this section do
\nnot  come to an end merely on computation of the  income  of
\nthe firm and determination of the tax payable by the firm on
\nthat  income.\tThe Income-tax Officer, who deals  with\t the
\nassessment of the firm, has also to apportion the income  of
\nthe  firm,  in the case of a registered\t firm,\tbetween\t its
\npartners  and  the notice of that apportionment\t has  to  be
\ngiven\tunder  s.  23  (6)  ‘by\t him  to  the  firm.\tThis
\napportionment\tis  clearly  treated  as  a  part  of\t‘the
\nproceeding  for assessment of the firm and that is  why\t the
\nnotice is to be given to the firm.  The second proviso to s.
\n30 (1) also clarifies this position by laying down that\t the
\nright  or  appeal in respect of the apportionment is  to  be
\nexercised by the
\n682<\/span>
\npartners  by filing appeals against the order of  assessment
\nof  the\t firm and not against orders made in the  course  of
\nsubsequent proceedings for the individual assessments of the
\npartners  themselves.  The second proviso to s. 23  (5)\t (a)
\nalso brings out this position.\tIn certain cases, after\t the
\napportionment  of  the income of the  registered  firm,\t the
\nshare  of a particular partner, who is not resident  in\t the
\ntaxable territories, is to be assessed to tax also as if  it
\nis the income of the registered firm.  All these  provisions
\nclearly\t show  that  proceedings for assessment\t of  a\tfirm
\nconsist\t  of  computation  of  the  income  of\t the   firm,
\ndetermination  of tax payable by the firm, apportionment  of
\nthe income of the firm between its partners in the case of a
\nregistered firm and, in appropriate cases, imposition of tax
\non  the\t firm  after including the share of  the  income  of
\ncertain partners in the income of the firm, even though\t the
\nfirm  is registered.  The proceedings for assessment of\t the
\nfirm are not completed until all these steps have been taken
\nby the Income-tax Officer, and each one of those steps\tmust
\nbe  held to be a step in the proceedings for  assessment  of
\nthe firm.  Consequently, when the Income-tax Officer  passed
\nthe  orders  dated 20th December, 1966 and  apportioned\t the
\nincome of the firms between the various partners, the orders
\nwhich  he  made\t were  clearly\torders\tin  proceedings\t for
\nassessment  and\t it  was in order to give  effect  to  these
\norders in the individual assessment of the partners that the
\nimpugned notices were issued.  The first condition precedent
\nthat  the proceedings under s. 35(5) are to be taken on\t the
\nbasis  of information derived from orders of  assessment  or
\nre-assessment of the firm was, thus, clearly satisfied.
\nIn this connection, learned counsel drew our attention to  a
\ndecision  of the Madras High Court in V. S.  Arulanandam  v.
\nIncome-tax Officer, Tuticorin(l), where that Court,  dealing
\nwith section 35(5) of the Act of 1922, held :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The respondent relied at one stage on section
\n\t      35(5)  of the Act.  It should be obvious\tthat
\n\t      the petitioner’s case did not come within\t the
\n\t      scope  of\t section  35  (5).   There  was\t  no
\n\t      reassessment  of the income of the  firm;\t nor
\n\t      was there an appeal against the assessment  of
\n\t      the  firm.   The only appeal of the  firm\t was
\n\t      against  the order of the\t Income-tax  Officer
\n\t      refusing\tregistration under section 26A.\t  In
\n\t      fact,  the finality of the assessment  of\t the
\n\t      firm  dated  November 11, 1954, was  left\t un-
\n\t      touched  all  through, an aspect to  which  we
\n\t      shall have to advert again.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Reliance  was placed on this comment, because in  that\tcase
\nalso  the  firm, of which the assessee was  a  partner,\t was
\nfirst refused
\n(1)  43 I.T.R. 511, at p. 517.\n<\/p>\n
683<\/span><\/p>\n
registration and the assessment of the partner was sought to
\nbe  rectified when, subsequently, registration of  the\tfirm
\nwas  allowed.\tThe  facts  of\tthat  case  were,   however,
\ndifferent.   In\t that  case,  there  was  no  assessment  or
\nreassessment  of  the  firm  subsequent\t to  the  grant\t  of
\nregistration.\tThe  petition filed by the assessee  in\t the
\nHigh  Court  under  Art. 226  of  the  Constitution  against
\nproceedings  of\t rectification\tsought to be  taken  by\t the
\nIncome-tax Officer was allowed on two grounds.\tOne was that
\nthe  Income-tax\t Officer  had given no\topportunity  to\t the
\nassessee before completing the proceedings of  rectification
\nunder s. 35.  The other was that the income of the firm\t had
\nalready\t been taxed as the income of the  unregistered\tfirm
\nand  there could be no second assessment of the same  income
\nin  respect of the assessee’s share in his assessment  until
\nthe  assessment\t of that income to tax in the hands  of\t the
\nfirm was set aside.  What was thus set aside was the attempt
\nto tax the same income twice.  It was in these circumstances
\nthat  the  Court observed that there was no  scope  for\t the
\napplicability of s. 3 5 (1) or s. 3 5 ( 5 ) of the Act of  1\n<\/p>\n
922.   Section 35(5) did not apply, because, in fact,  there
\nwas no assessment or reassessment of the income of the\tfirm
\nsubsequent to the order granting registration.\tThe finality
\nof  the assessment of the firm had been left  untouched\t and
\nwhile that order remained intact, the provisions of s. 35(5)
\ncould  not  possibly be attracted.  In the case\t before\t us,
\nafter  registration of the firms was allowed in appeal,\t the
\nIncome-tax Officer in the proceedings for assessment of\t the
\nfirms  proceeded further to make a fresh assessment  of\t the
\ntax payable by the firms and also to apportion the income of
\nthe  firms between various partners, so that the  income  of
\nthe firms no longer remained taxed as income of unregistered
\nfirms,\tand liability arose of the partners to be  taxed  in
\ntheir assessments in respect of their shares of the  income.
\nClearly, in these circumstances.s. 35(5)     was     rightly
\napplied.\n<\/p>\n
The  last  point urged by learned counsel was  that,  in  s.
\n35(5)  of  the\tAct of 1922, there  is\ta  second  condition
\nprecedent,  on the existence of which alone proceedings\t for
\nrectification  can be taken under it and that  condition  is
\nthat it should be found that the share of the partner in the
\nprofit\tor  loss of the firm had not been  included  in\t the
\nassessment of the partner, or, if included, was not correct:
\nand  there  was no such finding in the present\tcases.\t The
\nshare  of each partner was not included for the\t purpose  of
\nassessment of that share to tax.  Inclusion contemplated  by
\ns.  35(5)  is  for  assessment to tax  of  the\tshare.\t The
\ninclusion  was for only two limited purposes.\tOne  purpose
\nwas of determining the exemption to which the partners\twere
\nentitled  under s. 14(2) (a) of the Act of 1922.  The  other
\npurpose\t was  for  determining the rate\t at  which  tax\t was
\npayable in the separate assessments of the partners under s.
\n16 (1 ) (a) of
\n684<\/span>
\nthat  Act.  The shares of the income of\t the  partners\twere
\nnever  included for the purpose of bringing those shares  of
\nincome to tax in their ]individual assessments.\t The tax was
\nactually  imposed in the assessment of the firms  themselves
\ntreating  it as the income of unregistered firms.  When\t the
\nassessments  of the unregistered firms were set\t aside,\t the
\nindividual partners ceased to be entitled to the benefit  of
\ns.  14(2) (a), and s. 16(l.) (a) also  became  inapplicable.
\nWhat  was required to be done was to add the income of\teach
\npartner in his individual assessment and then impose tax  on
\nit  in accordance with s. 23(5)(a)(ii) of the Act  of  1922.
\nmust, this was a clear case where the inclusion of the share
\nof  the income of the partner in his  individual  assessment
\nwas  not correct.  If the submission made on behalf  of\t the
\nappellants  be\taccepted,  a  curious  result  would  ensue,
\nbecause\t the liability of the firms to pay tax on the  basis
\nthat they were unregistered firms would stand vacated, while
\nthe shares of the partners in the firms would not be brought
\nto  tax in their individual assessments under s. 23 (5)\t (a)\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  .\t so  that  the income would  escape  charge  to\t tax
\naltogether.  It is clear that s. 35(5) of the Act of 1922 is
\nenacted\t precisely to meet situations of the type  that\t has
\ncome up in the present cases, so that when the imposition of
\nthe  tax on the firm as an unregistered firm is\t set  aside,
\ntax  can  be  imposed on the shares of\tthe  income  of\t the
\npartners in their individual assessments by rectifying\tthem
\nunder  s.  35(5)  of the Act  of’  1922.   This\t submission,
\nconsequently. has no force.\n<\/p>\n
The appeals fall and are dismissed with costs.\tThere ,,hall
\nbe fee.\n<\/p>\n
R.K.P.S.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
685<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India S. Sankappa And Others vs The Income-Tax Officer, Central … on 14 December, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 816, 1968 SCR (2) 674 Author: V Bhargava Bench: Bhargava, Vishishtha PETITIONER: S. SANKAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE II,BANGALORE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/12\/1967 BENCH: BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA BENCH: BHARGAVA, […]<\/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-118614","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nS. Sankappa And Others vs The Income-Tax Officer, Central ... on 14 December, 1967 - 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\/s-sankappa-and-others-vs-the-income-tax-officer-central-on-14-december-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S. Sankappa And Others vs The Income-Tax Officer, Central ... on 14 December, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sankappa-and-others-vs-the-income-tax-officer-central-on-14-december-1967\" \/>\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=\"1967-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-13T17:23:03+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=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-sankappa-and-others-vs-the-income-tax-officer-central-on-14-december-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-sankappa-and-others-vs-the-income-tax-officer-central-on-14-december-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S. Sankappa And Others vs The Income-Tax Officer, Central … on 14 December, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-13T17:23:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-sankappa-and-others-vs-the-income-tax-officer-central-on-14-december-1967\"},\"wordCount\":3897,\"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\\\/s-sankappa-and-others-vs-the-income-tax-officer-central-on-14-december-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-sankappa-and-others-vs-the-income-tax-officer-central-on-14-december-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-sankappa-and-others-vs-the-income-tax-officer-central-on-14-december-1967\",\"name\":\"S. Sankappa And Others vs The Income-Tax Officer, Central ... on 14 December, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-13T17:23:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-sankappa-and-others-vs-the-income-tax-officer-central-on-14-december-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-sankappa-and-others-vs-the-income-tax-officer-central-on-14-december-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-sankappa-and-others-vs-the-income-tax-officer-central-on-14-december-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S. Sankappa And Others vs The Income-Tax Officer, Central … on 14 December, 1967\"}]},{\"@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":"S. Sankappa And Others vs The Income-Tax Officer, Central ... on 14 December, 1967 - 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\/s-sankappa-and-others-vs-the-income-tax-officer-central-on-14-december-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S. Sankappa And Others vs The Income-Tax Officer, Central ... on 14 December, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sankappa-and-others-vs-the-income-tax-officer-central-on-14-december-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-13T17:23:03+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":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sankappa-and-others-vs-the-income-tax-officer-central-on-14-december-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sankappa-and-others-vs-the-income-tax-officer-central-on-14-december-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S. Sankappa And Others vs The Income-Tax Officer, Central … on 14 December, 1967","datePublished":"1967-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-13T17:23:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sankappa-and-others-vs-the-income-tax-officer-central-on-14-december-1967"},"wordCount":3897,"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\/s-sankappa-and-others-vs-the-income-tax-officer-central-on-14-december-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sankappa-and-others-vs-the-income-tax-officer-central-on-14-december-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sankappa-and-others-vs-the-income-tax-officer-central-on-14-december-1967","name":"S. Sankappa And Others vs The Income-Tax Officer, Central ... on 14 December, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-13T17:23:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sankappa-and-others-vs-the-income-tax-officer-central-on-14-december-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sankappa-and-others-vs-the-income-tax-officer-central-on-14-december-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sankappa-and-others-vs-the-income-tax-officer-central-on-14-december-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S. Sankappa And Others vs The Income-Tax Officer, Central … on 14 December, 1967"}]},{"@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\/118614","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=118614"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118614\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=118614"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=118614"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=118614"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}