{"id":119092,"date":"1975-03-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-03-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tiwari-kanahaiyalal-etc-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-march-1975"},"modified":"2018-05-22T15:12:39","modified_gmt":"2018-05-22T09:42:39","slug":"tiwari-kanahaiyalal-etc-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-march-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tiwari-kanahaiyalal-etc-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-march-1975","title":{"rendered":"Tiwari Kanahaiyalal Etc vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; on 13 March, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Tiwari Kanahaiyalal Etc vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; on 13 March, 1975<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR  902, \t\t  1975 SCR  (3) 927<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: N Untwalia<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Untwalia, N.L.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nTIWARI KANAHAIYALAL ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT13\/03\/1975\n\nBENCH:\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\nBENCH:\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\nALAGIRISWAMI, A.\n\nCITATION:\n 1975 AIR  902\t\t  1975 SCR  (3) 927\n 1975 SCC  (4) 401\n\n\nACT:\nIncome-tax  Act (11 of 1922), ss. 28 and 52, Income-tax\t Act\n(43  of 1961), ss. 271, 277 and 297 and General Clauses\t Act\n(10  of 1897) s. 6 (c)--False declaration filed by  assessee\nunder 1922 Act--Penalty imposed under 1961  Act--Prosecution\nfor false declaration under s. 52 of 1922 Act--If valid.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nSection\t 297(2)(f)  of\tthe  Indian  Income-tax\t Act,  1961,\nprovides  that notwithstanding the repeat of the  Income-tax\nAct, 1922, any proceeding for the imposition of a penalty in\nrespect\t of any assessment completed before April  1,  1962,\nmay be initiated as if the 1961 Act had not been passed; and\nClause\t(g) provides that any proceeding for the  imposition\nof  a  penalty\tin respect of any assessment  for  the\tyear\nending\tMarch  31,  1962, or any  earlier  year,  which\t was\ncompleted on or after April 11. 1962 may be initiated  under\nthe  1961 Act.\tSection 28(4) of the 1922 Act provides\tthat\nno prosecution for an offence against the 1922 Act shall  be\ninstituted  in respect of the same facts on which a  penalty\nhas been imposed Linder the section.\nThe appellant, filed returns under s. 22(2), Income-tax Act,\n1922, the last of the returns being for the assessment\tyear\n1959-60.   In  1964, he filed revised returns for  the\tsame\nassessment  years showing a larger income.   The  income-tax\nwas  assessed under the 1961 Act on the revised returns\t and\npenalty\t proceedings were instituted and penalty was  levied\nunder  s. 271 of the 1961 Act.\tThe respondent,\t thereafter,\nfiled complaints for offences under s. 277 of the 1961\tAct.\nBy  way of abundant caution he also filed complaints on\t the\nsame  facts for offences under s. 52 of the [922  Act.\t The\ntrial  court  held  that the launching\tof  prosecution\t was\n'illegal in view of s. 28(4) of the 1922-Act and Art.  20(1)\nof  the Constitution.  The High Court, in appeal, held\tthat\nsince no penalty was imposed under s. 28 of the 1922 Act, s.\n28  (4) was not a bar to the institution of prosecution\t not\nwas  it hit by Art. 20(1), and directed the trial  court  to\nproceed with the trial.\nDismissing the appeal to this Court,\nHELD : (1) All the assessments although they related to\t the\nyears  earlier than the year ending on March 31,  1962,\t and\nwere completed after the coming into force of the  1961-Act.\n(April,\t 1962).\t Hence the proceeding for the imposition  of\npenalty had to be and was initiated under the 1961 Act under\ns. 297(g).  Therefore, s. 28(4) of the 1922 Act cannot be  a\nbar  as no penalty was imposed under s. 28,and there  is  no\nprovision similar to s. 28(4) in the 1961 Act. [930 A-B]\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1556567\/\">Jain  Bros &amp; Others v. The Union of India &amp; others<\/a> [1970]  3\nS.C.R. 253. followed.\n(2) Article 20(1) does not help the appellant.\tIt is not  a\npost  facto legislation that is being pressed  against\thim.\nSection\t 28(4)\tdid  not obliterate the\t commission  of\t the\noffence or convert the offence into an innocent act.   Under\nthe  section,  the imposition of penalty merely\t barred\t the\nprosecution.   But in the present case, the  penalty  having\nbeen  imposed under s. 271 of the 1961 Act the launching  of\nprosecution  became  permissible  and was not  hit  by\tArt.\n20(1). [931 D]\nRao  Shiv Bahadur Singh and another v. The State of  Vindhya\nPradesh [1953] S.C.R. 1188. followed.\n(3)  (a) On the facts alleged, if true, the appellant  would\nbe  guilty  of\tan offence tinder s.  52  of  the  1922-Act.\nSection 297(1) of the 1961-Act repealed the 1922Act.  In  s.\n297(2) there is no saving for launching a prosecution  under\ns.  52\tof the 1922-Act.  But since no\tintention  different\nfrom that in s. 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897,  appears\nin  s.\t297(2) of the 1961-Act, the criminal  liability\t in-\ncurred tinder s. 52 of the 1922 Act remains unaffected under\ns. 6(c) of the General\n928\nClauses\t Act.  The Prosecution can only be for\tthe  offence\nunder  s.  52 of the 1922-Act and s. 277 of  the  1961\tAct,\nwhich  corresponds  to\ts. 52 of  the  1922-Act,  cannot  be\ninvoked. [931 G-H]\n(b)  The  appellant would also be entitled to  rely  on\t the\nsecond part of Art. 20(1) that he Should not be subjected to\na penalty greater than that which might have been  inflicted\nunder the law in force at the time of the commission of\t the\noffence,  (s.  52 of the 1922 Act), because, s. 277  of\t the\n1961-Act, corresponding to s. 52 of the 1922 Act, provides a\ngreater punishment. [931 E-F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.  28-39<br \/>\nof 1971.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeals\t by Special Leave from the Judgment and order  dated<br \/>\nthe  18th  August, 1970 of the Rajasthan High Court  in\t SB.<br \/>\nCriminal Revision Nos. 102-113 of 1968.<br \/>\nM. M. Tewari, and S. M. Jain, for the appellant.<br \/>\nT. A. Ramachandran S. P. Nayar, and R. N. Sachthey, for\t the<br \/>\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nUNTWALIA, J. These are 12 appeals filed by the appellant  on<br \/>\ngrant  of  special  leave  by this  Court  from\t the  common<br \/>\njudgment  of the Rajasthan High Court allowing\t12  Criminal<br \/>\nappeals\t filed by the respondent in accordance with  section<br \/>\n417(3)\tof  the\t Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,\t 1898.\t The<br \/>\nappellant  as  partner\tof his partnership  firm  filed\t (1)<br \/>\nIncome Tax Returns for various assessment years-the last one<br \/>\nbeing assessment year 1959-1960.  The Returns were filed  by<br \/>\nthe appellant between 26-3-1958 and 16-10-1961 in accordance<br \/>\nwith  section 22(2) of the Income  Tax\tAct,1922-hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to as the 1922 Act.  The said act was repealed\t and<br \/>\nreplaced by the Income Tax Act, 1961-hereinafter called\t the<br \/>\n1961 Act.  The 1961 Act came into force on or from 1-4-1962.<br \/>\nDuring the course of the assessment proceedings when account<br \/>\nbooks  were  produced  for  examination\t by  the  Income-tax<br \/>\nOfficer,   Special  Investigation  Circle&#8217;B&#8217;,\tJaipur,\t  he<br \/>\nsuspected  their genuineness or correctness.  In  May,\t1963<br \/>\nthe appellants premises were searched and a number of  other<br \/>\nbooks  of account and documents were seized.  Thereupon\t the<br \/>\nappellant  filed revised Returns on 1-3-1964 in\t respect  of<br \/>\nall the 12 periods.  In the revised Returns the total income<br \/>\nshown  was  far greater than what was shown in\tthe  earlier<br \/>\nReturns.   Income-tax was assessed after the filing  of\t the<br \/>\nrevised Returns in respect of all the periods in  accordance<br \/>\nwith  the 1961 Act.  Penalty proceedings were initiated\t and<br \/>\npenalty\t was levied in respect of each Return under  section<br \/>\n271(1)\t(c)(iii) of the 1961 Act.  The respondent  filed  12<br \/>\ncomplaints  against  the appellant  alleging  commission  of<br \/>\noffence by him under section 277 of the 1961 Act.  Since the<br \/>\nrespondent  was not quite sure of the legal Position,  as  a<br \/>\nmatter of abundant precaution 12 more complaints were  filed<br \/>\non the same facts to remake out commission of offence by the<br \/>\nappellant under section 52 of the 1922 Act.  The City Magis-<br \/>\ntrate,\tJaipur\tin whose court all the\t24  complaints\twere<br \/>\nfiled ordered<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">929<\/span><br \/>\nthe  tagging of the 12 complaints filed later under  section<br \/>\n52  of the 1922 Act with the complaints filed earlier  under<br \/>\nsection\t 277 of the 1961 Act.  To all intents  and  purposes<br \/>\ntherefore the numerically 24 complaints became 12 complaints<br \/>\nfor trial of the appellant under section 277 of the 1961 Act<br \/>\nor section 52 of the 1922 Act as the case may be.<br \/>\nAfter  the commencement of the trial the appellant  in\teach<br \/>\ncase  filed a petition before the City Magistrate  that\t the<br \/>\nlaunching of the prosecution against him was bad and void in<br \/>\nview of the provisions of section 28(4) of the 1922 Act read<br \/>\nwith  Article  20(1)  of the  Constitution  of\tIndia.\t The<br \/>\nMagistrate  felt  persuaded  to accept the  stand  taken  on<br \/>\nbehalf\tof  the\t appellant and held that the  could  not  be<br \/>\nprosecuted  after  imposition of penalty  under\t the  taxing<br \/>\nstatute\t and acquitted the appellant in all the cases.\t The<br \/>\nHigh Court has held that since no penalty was imposed on the<br \/>\npetitioner  or\this firm under section 28 of the  1922\tAct,<br \/>\nsection\t 28(4)\twas  not a bar to  the\tinstitution  of\t the<br \/>\nprosecution nor was it hit by Article 20(1).  The High Court<br \/>\ndid  not  express  any view whether  the  offence,  if\tany,<br \/>\ncommitted  by  the appellant fell under section 277  of\t the<br \/>\n1961  Act or section 52 of the 1922 Act.  The  appeals\twere<br \/>\nallowed and the Magistrate was directed to proceed with\t the<br \/>\ntrials in accordance with the law.  Hence these appeals.<br \/>\nThe  only  question falling for our determination  in  these<br \/>\nappeals\t is Whether institution of the\tprosecution  against<br \/>\nthe appellant for the alleged commission of offences by\t him<br \/>\nunder  either  the 1961 or the 1922 Act was bad\t in  law  as<br \/>\nbeing violative of section 28(4) of the 1922 Act or  Article<br \/>\n20(1).\n<\/p>\n<p>Section\t 297(1)\t of  the 1961 Act  repealed  the  1922\tAct.<br \/>\nCertain\t savings  were provided in sub-section (2)  some  of<br \/>\nwhich even without those express provisions would have\tbeen<br \/>\ncovered by section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.\t But<br \/>\nfor  the  sake of precision and certainty  those  provisions<br \/>\nwere  made.  Some of the clauses (a) to (in) in\t sub-section<br \/>\n(2)  of\t section  297 are such that  a\tdifferent  intention<br \/>\nappears\t from  them  and they over-ride\t or  supplement\t the<br \/>\nprovisions  contained  in section 6 of the  General  Clauses<br \/>\nAct.   Section 297 (2) provides &#8220;Notwithstanding the  repeal<br \/>\nof the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (Xi of 1922) (hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to as the repealed Act),-\n<\/p>\n<pre>\t*     *\t     *\t    *\t    *\t   *\t  *\n\t*     *\t     *\t    *\t    *\t   *\t  *\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t      (f)  any\tproceeding for the imposition  of  a<br \/>\n\t      penalty in respect of any assessment completed<br \/>\n\t      before  the  1st day of April,  1962,  may  be<br \/>\n\t      initiated and any such penalty may be  imposed<br \/>\n\t      as if this Act had not been passed;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (g)  any\tproceeding for the imposition  of  a<br \/>\n\t      penalty  in respect of any assessment for\t the<br \/>\n\t      year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, or<br \/>\n\t      any  earlier  year, which is completed  on  or<br \/>\n\t      after  the  1st  day of April,  1962,  may  be<br \/>\n\t      initiated and any such penalty may be  imposed<br \/>\n\t      under this Act.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">930<\/span><\/p>\n<p>All  the 12 assessments although they related to  the  years<br \/>\nearlier than the year ending on the 31st day of March,\t1962<br \/>\nwere  completed\t after coming into force of  the  1961\tAct.<br \/>\nHence a proceeding for the imposition of penalty in  respect<br \/>\nof any one of those years had to be and was initiated  under<br \/>\nthe  1961 Act in accordance with clause (g) Clause  (f)\t did<br \/>\nnot come into play and no penalty was imposed under  section<br \/>\n28  of the 1922 Act.  That being so, as rightly pointed\t out<br \/>\nby  the\t High  Court, section 28(4) was not  a\tbar  to\t the<br \/>\nlaunching  of the prosecution as no such provision is to  be<br \/>\nfound  either in section 271 or in any other section of\t the<br \/>\n1961 Act.  Section 28(4) says &#8220;No prosecution for an offence<br \/>\nagainst this Act shall be instituted in respect of the\tsame<br \/>\nfacts  on  which  a  penalty has  been\timposed\t under\tthis<br \/>\nsection.&#8221;,  The\t said  provision is  not  available  to\t the<br \/>\nappellant  to bar the institution of the prosecution for  an<br \/>\noffence\t against either of the two Acts when a\tpenalty\t has<br \/>\nbeen  imposed  not under section 28(1) of the 1922  Act\t but<br \/>\nunder section 271(1) of the 1961 Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>Grover,\t  J  delivering\t the  judgment\ton  behalf  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution Bench of this Court in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1556567\/\">Jain Bros  &amp;<br \/>\nothers\tv. The Union of India others<\/a>(1) has pointed  out  at<br \/>\npage 263 :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;It  is  obvious that for\t the  imposition  of<br \/>\n\t      penalty  it is not the assessment year or\t the<br \/>\n\t      date  of\tthe filing of the  return  which  is<br \/>\n\t      important\t but it is the satisfaction  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      income tax authorities that a default has been<br \/>\n\t      committed by the assessee which would  attract<br \/>\n\t      the provisions relating to penalty.   Whatever<br \/>\n\t      the   stage  at  which  the  satisfaction\t  is<br \/>\n\t      reached,\tthe scheme of ss.274(1) and  275  of<br \/>\n\t      the  Act\tof 1961 is that the  order  imposing<br \/>\n\t      penalty  must be made after the completion  of<br \/>\n\t      the assessment.  The crucial date,  therefore,<br \/>\n\t      for  purposes of penalty is The date  of\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      completion.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      At page 264 says the learned Judge further :<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;Both ss. 271(1) and 297(2)(g) have to be read<br \/>\n\t      together\tand in harmony and so read the\tonly<br \/>\n\t      conclusion possible is that for the imposition<br \/>\n\t      of a penalty in respect of any assessment\t for<br \/>\n\t      the  year\t ending\t on March 31,  1962  or\t any<br \/>\n\t      earlier  year which is completed\tafter  first<br \/>\n\t      day  of April 1962 the proceedings have to  be<br \/>\n\t      initiated\t  and\tthe   penalty\timposed\t  in<br \/>\n\t      accordance with the provisions of s.271 of the<br \/>\n\t      Act of 1961.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Even  clause (1) of Article 20 of the Constitution does\t not<br \/>\nhelp  the  appellant.  It is not a  post  facto\t legislation<br \/>\nwhich is being pressed into service against him.  As pointed<br \/>\nout  by\t a  Constitution Bench of this\tCourt  in  Rao\tShiv<br \/>\nBahadur Singh and another v. The State of Vindhya Pradesh(2)<br \/>\nat page 1198 :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;This  article  in its broad import  has\tbeen<br \/>\n\t      enacted to prohibit convictions and  sentences<br \/>\n\t      under  ex\t post  facto  laws.   The  principle<br \/>\n\t      underlying    such   prohibition\t has\tbeen<br \/>\n\t      elaborately<br \/>\n(1) [1970] (3) S.C.R. 253.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>(2) [1953] S.C.R. 1188.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">931<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\t      discussed and pointed out in the very  learned<br \/>\n\t      judgment\tof Justice Willes in the well  known<br \/>\n\t      case of Phillips v. Eyre(1870) 6 Q.B.D. 1,  at<br \/>\n\t      23  and  25 and also by the Supreme  Court  of<br \/>\n\t      U.S.A. in Calder v. Bull-3 Dallas 386; 1\tLaw.<br \/>\n\t      Edition 648 at 649.  In the English case it is<br \/>\n\t      explained\t that  ex post facto laws  are\tlaws<br \/>\n\t      which voided and punished what had been lawful<br \/>\n\t      when  done.  There can be no doubt as  to\t the<br \/>\n\t      paramount\t importance  of the  principle\tthat<br \/>\n\t      such ex post facto laws, which retrospectively<br \/>\n\t      create  offences\tand punish them are  bad  as<br \/>\n\t      being highly inequitable and unjust.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Article\t 20(1) also prohibits_ the subjecting of any  person<br \/>\nto  a  penalty\tgreater\t than that  which  might  have\tbeen<br \/>\ninflicted  under  the  law  in force  at  the  time  of\t the<br \/>\ncommission of the offence.  On the facts alleged against the<br \/>\nappellant,  it\tfound to be true, at the time  he  made\t the<br \/>\nfalse  statements  in  the declarations\t he  did  commit  an<br \/>\noffence\t under section 52 of the 1922 Act.  Sub-section\t (4)<br \/>\nof  section  28\t did  not  obliterate  the  factum  of\t the<br \/>\ncommission of the offence and did not transmute the  offence<br \/>\ninto  an innocent act because of the imposition\t of  penalty<br \/>\nunder  section\t28.   Such  imposition\tmerely.\t barred\t the<br \/>\nprosecution  for the trial and conviction of the  commission<br \/>\nof  the\t offence.   The penalty having\tbeen  imposed  under<br \/>\nsection 271 of the 1961 Act the launching of the prosecution<br \/>\nbecame\tpermissible and was not hit by Article 20(1) of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution.  We are inclined to think that the offence, if<br \/>\nany, committed by the appellant was under section 52 of\t the<br \/>\n1922  Act as the allegedly false statements in\tdeclarations<br \/>\nwere  made  at a time when the, said Act was in\t force.\t  No<br \/>\nfalse  statement in any declaration seems to have been\tmade<br \/>\nunder the 1961 Act to form the basis of a charge against the<br \/>\nappellant  under  section 277 of that Act.   The  punishment<br \/>\nprovided  in this section is greater than the one  engrafted<br \/>\nin  section  52 of the 1922 Act.  To that  extent  only\t the<br \/>\nappellant would be entitled to press into service the second<br \/>\npart  of clause (1) of Article 20 of the Constitution  which<br \/>\nsays that no person shall<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;be  subjected to a penalty greater than\tthat<br \/>\n\t      which might have been inflicted under the\t law<br \/>\n\t      in force at the time of the commission of\t the<br \/>\n\t      offence.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>It is advisable to discuss and dispose of a new point  which<br \/>\narose  bring the hearing of these appeals.  Sub-section\t (1)<br \/>\nof, section 297 the 1961 Act repealed the 1922 Act including<br \/>\nsection 52.  In sub-section (2) no saving seems to have been<br \/>\nprovided  for  the launching of the  prosecution  under\t the<br \/>\nrepealed section 52 of the 1922\t It does not seem correct to<br \/>\ntake  recourse to clause (h) of Section 297(2) to  make\t the<br \/>\noffences  come\tunder  section 277 of the  1961\t it  as\t was<br \/>\nendeavoured  to\t be  done by the  respondent  in  the  first<br \/>\ncomplaint  petitions.\tBut then from no clause\t under\tsub-<br \/>\nsection\t a different intention appears in this\tregard\tfrom<br \/>\nwhat has been I in section 6 of the General Clauses Act.  On<br \/>\nthe facts alleged criminal liability incurred under  section<br \/>\n52  of the 1922 Act reasons unaffected under clause  (c)  of<br \/>\nsection 6 of the General Clauses<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">932<\/span><br \/>\nAct.   In  the case of T. S. Baliah v. T.  S.  Rangachari(1)<br \/>\nRamaswami, J. delivering the judgment of this Court has said<br \/>\nat page 71 :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;The principle of this section is that  unless<br \/>\n\t      a different intention appears in the repealing<br \/>\n\t      Act,  any legal proceeding can  be  instituted<br \/>\n\t      and continued in respect of any matter pending<br \/>\n\t      under  the repealed Act as if that Act was  in<br \/>\n\t      force at the time of repeal.  In other  words,<br \/>\n\t      whenever there is a repeal of an enactment the<br \/>\n\t      consequences  laid down in s.6 of the  General<br \/>\n\t      Clauses Act will follow unless, as the section<br \/>\n\t      itself says, a different intention appears  in<br \/>\n\t      the  repealing  statute.\t In the\t case  of  a<br \/>\n\t      simple  repeal there is scarcely any room\t for<br \/>\n\t      expression  of a contrary opinion.   But\twhen<br \/>\n\t      the repeal is followed by fresh legislation on<br \/>\n\t      the  same subject the Court would\t undoubtedly<br \/>\n\t      have to look to the provisions of the new Act,<br \/>\n\t      but  only\t for  the  purpose  of\t determining<br \/>\n\t      whether  they indicate a different  intention.<br \/>\n\t      The  question  is\t not  whether  the  new\t Act<br \/>\n\t      expressly\t  keeps\t  alive&#8217;  old\trights\t and<br \/>\n\t      liabilities   but\t whether  it  manifests\t  an<br \/>\n\t      intention\t to destroy them.  Section 6 of\t the<br \/>\n\t      General\tClauses\t  Act  therefore   will\t  be<br \/>\n\t      applicable   unless   the\t  new\t legislation<br \/>\n\t      manifests\t an intention incompatible  with  or<br \/>\n\t      contrary\tto  the provisions of  the  section.<br \/>\n\t      Such   incompatibility   would  have   to\t  be<br \/>\n\t      ascertained  from a consideration of  all\t the<br \/>\n\t      relevant provisions of the new statute and the<br \/>\n\t      mere  absence of a saving clause is by  itself<br \/>\n\t\t\t    not material.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>In the result all the appeals fail and are dismissed.<br \/>\nV.P.S.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t    Appeals dismissed<br \/>\n(1) [1969] (3) S.C.R. 65.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">933<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Tiwari Kanahaiyalal Etc vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; on 13 March, 1975 Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 902, 1975 SCR (3) 927 Author: N Untwalia Bench: Untwalia, N.L. PETITIONER: TIWARI KANAHAIYALAL ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI DATE OF JUDGMENT13\/03\/1975 BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. ALAGIRISWAMI, [&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-119092","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>Tiwari Kanahaiyalal Etc vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 13 March, 1975 - 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\/tiwari-kanahaiyalal-etc-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-march-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tiwari Kanahaiyalal Etc vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 13 March, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tiwari-kanahaiyalal-etc-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-march-1975\" \/>\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=\"1975-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-22T09:42:39+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tiwari-kanahaiyalal-etc-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-march-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tiwari-kanahaiyalal-etc-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-march-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tiwari Kanahaiyalal Etc vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; on 13 March, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-22T09:42:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tiwari-kanahaiyalal-etc-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-march-1975\"},\"wordCount\":2153,\"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\\\/tiwari-kanahaiyalal-etc-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-march-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tiwari-kanahaiyalal-etc-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-march-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tiwari-kanahaiyalal-etc-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-march-1975\",\"name\":\"Tiwari Kanahaiyalal Etc vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 13 March, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-22T09:42:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tiwari-kanahaiyalal-etc-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-march-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tiwari-kanahaiyalal-etc-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-march-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tiwari-kanahaiyalal-etc-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-march-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tiwari Kanahaiyalal Etc vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; on 13 March, 1975\"}]},{\"@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":"Tiwari Kanahaiyalal Etc vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 13 March, 1975 - 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\/tiwari-kanahaiyalal-etc-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-march-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tiwari Kanahaiyalal Etc vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 13 March, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tiwari-kanahaiyalal-etc-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-march-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-22T09:42:39+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tiwari-kanahaiyalal-etc-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-march-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tiwari-kanahaiyalal-etc-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-march-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tiwari Kanahaiyalal Etc vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; on 13 March, 1975","datePublished":"1975-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-22T09:42:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tiwari-kanahaiyalal-etc-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-march-1975"},"wordCount":2153,"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\/tiwari-kanahaiyalal-etc-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-march-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tiwari-kanahaiyalal-etc-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-march-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tiwari-kanahaiyalal-etc-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-march-1975","name":"Tiwari Kanahaiyalal Etc vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 13 March, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-22T09:42:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tiwari-kanahaiyalal-etc-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-march-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tiwari-kanahaiyalal-etc-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-march-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tiwari-kanahaiyalal-etc-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-march-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tiwari Kanahaiyalal Etc vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; on 13 March, 1975"}]},{"@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\/119092","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=119092"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119092\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119092"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119092"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119092"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}