{"id":129370,"date":"1987-07-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1987-07-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sir-shadi-lal-sugar-and-general-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-on-31-july-1987"},"modified":"2018-10-01T07:06:11","modified_gmt":"2018-10-01T01:36:11","slug":"sir-shadi-lal-sugar-and-general-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-on-31-july-1987","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sir-shadi-lal-sugar-and-general-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-on-31-july-1987","title":{"rendered":"Sir Shadi Lal Sugar And General … vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi on 31 July, 1987"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sir Shadi Lal Sugar And General … vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi on 31 July, 1987<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 2008, \t\t 1987 SCR (3) 692<\/div>\n
Author: S Mukharji<\/div>\n
Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSIR SHADI LAL SUGAR AND GENERAL MILLSLTD. & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT31\/07\/1987\n\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nOZA, G.L. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1987 AIR 2008\t\t  1987 SCR  (3) 692\n 1987 SCC  (4) 722\t  JT 1987 (3)\t189\n 1987 SCALE  (2)153\n\n\nACT:\n    Income Tax Act, 1961: ss. 256, 271 & 274\/Income Tax Act,\n1922: s. 66--Income-tax Reference--Finding of fact by Tribu-\nnal--When  could  be transformed into question\tof  law\t and\ninterfered with.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The assessee company, which derived its income from\t the\nmanufacture  and  sale of sugar and confectionery,  was\t as-\nsessed for the years 1958-59 by the Income Tax Officer under\nthe  Income Tax Act, 1922 by making additions  of  Rs.48,500\nfor cane cost, Rs.67,500 for shortage in cane, and Rs.21,700\nfor  salary of outstation staff. The assessee did not  chal-\nlenge the said assessment order. Later in the year 1963\t the\nIncome\tTax Officer issued notice under s. 274 read with  s.\n271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the assessment\nyear  1958-59  for imposing penalty. Before  the  Inspecting\nAssistant  Commissioner\t the assessee  admitted\t that  these\namounts, which were not included in the return by the compa-\nny, represented income. On finding that there was deliberate\nunderstatement of income he imposed a penalty of Rs.70,000.\n    On appeal the Tribunal held that the mere fact that\t the\namounts were agreed to be taken into account by the assessee\ndid not ipsofacto indicate any criminality in its action  to\nconceal\t any  portion of the income, and that  the  assessee\ncould very well have argued against the additions of the two\nsums, namely, Rs.67,500 and Rs.21,700. As regards the sum of\nRs.48,500  it found that the assessee had agreed to  similar\naddition  in the earlier years and so the penalty  was\twar-\nranted\tin  similar  amount for this year  and\ttaking\tinto\nconsideration  that the sum involved was Rs.48,500, it\tcon-\nsidered that a smaller penalty of Rs.5,000 was imposable.\n    The\t High Court took the view that the onus\t of  proving\nconcealment  was  on  the Revenue  because  proceedings\t for\npenalty were penal in character, and held that so far as the\nsum of Rs.48,500 was concerned it was not proved that  there\nwas  any deliberate concealment, that the Tribunal  had\t not\nset aside the finding of the Assistant Inspecting Com-\n693\nmissioner  that\t the  assessee\tsurrendered  the  amount  of\nRs.67,500 when it was faced with facts which clearly  estab-\nlished\tconcealment, that the assessee in fact\thad  surren-\ndered  the  amount  only after the Income  Tax\tOfficer\t had\nconclusive evidence in his possession that the amount repre-\nsented\tits  income,  that acceptance by  the  assessee\t was\nmaterial  to give proper weight to judge the criminality  of\nthe action which in its opinion was not given, and that\t the\nTribunal  omitted  to take into account the  fact  that\t the\nassessee  had admitted that the amount of  Rs.21,700  repre-\nsented its income.\n    In the appeal by special leave on the question as to how\nfar  the  High Court in a reference could interfere  with  a\nfinding\t of fact and transform the same into a\tquestion  of\nlaw  on the ground that there has been non-consideration  of\nall relevant facts.\nAllowing the appeal,\n    HELD:  1.1\tIn an income tax reference a  finding  on  a\nquestion  of pure fact could be reviewed by the\t High  Court\nonly on the ground that there was no evidence to support  it\nor that it was perverse. If the High Court found that  there\nwas no such evidence, those circumstances would give rise to\nquestion  of  law  and could be\t agitated  in  a  reference.\n[700G-701A, 702H-703A]\n     1.2 When a conclusion has been reached on an  apprecia-\ntion  of  a  number of facts established  by  the  evidence,\nwhether\t that  is  sound or not must be\t determined  not  by\nconsidering the weight to be attached to each single fact in\nisolation, but by assessing the cumulative effect of all the\nfacts in their setting as a whole. Where an ultimate finding\non  an\tissue  is an inference to be drawn  from  the  facts\nfound,\ton the application of any principles of\t law,  there\nwould be a mixed question of law and fact, and the inference\nfrom  the facts found in such a case would be a question  of\nlaw. But where the final determination of the issue  equally\nwith the finding or ascertainment of the basic facts did not\ninvolve\t the application of any principle of law, an  infer-\nence from the facts could not be regarded as one of law. The\nproposition that an inference from. facts is one of law\t is,\ntherefore, correct in its application to mixed questions  of\nlaw and fact, but not to pure questions of fact. In the case\nof pure questions of fact an inference from the facts is  as\nmuch  a\t question  of fact as the  evidence  of\t the  facts.\n[701A-D]\n     In\t the instant case, it is not said that the  Tribunal\nhad acted on material which was irrelevant to the enquiry or\nconsidered material\n694\nwhich was partly relevant and partly irrelevant or based its\ndecision partly on conjectures, surmises and suspicions.  It\ntook  into account all the relevant facts in a proper  light\nin  rendering a finding of fact. Therefore, no\tquestion  of\nlaw arises. [703BC, 701DE]\n    Sree Meenakshi Mills Limited v. Commissioner of  Income-\ntax,  Madras, 31 I.T.R. 28; Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v.\tCom-\nmissioner  of  Income-tax, Madras, 37 I.T.R.  151;  Udhavdas\nKewalram  v.  Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay City<\/a>  1,  66\nI.T.R.\t462  and Remeshwar Prasad Bagla v.  Commissioner  of\nIncome-tax, U.P.,<\/a> 87 I.T.R. 421, referred to.\n    2.1\t The  High  Court was wrong in\tsaying\tthat  proper\nweight had not been given to all the evidence and admissions\nmade by the assessee. The Tribunal had taken into considera-\ntion  the fact that the assessee had admitted the  additions\nas  its income when faced with non-disclosure in  assessment\nproceedings.  The time when the assessee admitted the  addi-\ntions was also considered. But to admit that there has\tbeen\nexcess claim or disallowance is not the same thing as delib-\nerate  concealment  or\tfurnishing  inaccurate\tparticulars.\nThere  may he hundred and one reasons for  such\t admissions,\ni.e.,  when the assessee realises the true position it\tdoes\nnot dispute certain disallowances but that does not  absolve\nthe Revenue to prove the mens rea of quasi criminal offence.\n[703BC, 702AB, 701A, 702BC]\n    2.2\t It is for the Income-tax authority to prove that  a\nparticular  receipt is taxable. If however, the\t receipt  is\naccepted and certain amount is accepted as taxable, it could\nbe  added. But in the instant case, it was not\taccepted  by\nthe  assessee that it had deliberately furnished  inaccurate\nparticulars or concealed any income. [702EF]\n    3.\tThe High Court observed that the time  of  admission\nwas  not  noted by the Tribunal and this fact had  not\tbeen\nproperly  appreciated by the Tribunal. That is not  correct.\nThe  Tribunal had made additions during the assessment\tpro-\nceedings.  In any event that would be appreciation  of\tevi-\ndence in a certain way, unless in such misappreciation which\namounted to non-appreciation no question of law would arise.\nNonappreciation may give rise to the question of law but not\nmere  misappreciation  even  if there he  any  from  certain\nangle.\tChange\tof perspective in viewing a thing  does\t not\ntransform a question of fact into a question of law. [703CD]\nThe  High  Court in preferring one view to another  view  of\nfactual\n695\nappreciation  in  the instant case,  has  therefore,  trans-\ngressed the limits of its. jurisdiction under the Income-Tax\nReference in answering the question of law. [703F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1660 (NT)
\nof 1974.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the  Judgment and Order dated\t 23.12.1971  of\t the
\nAllahabad High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 53 of 1968.
\nH.K. Puri for the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
Miss A. Subhashini and H.B. Rao for the Respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This appeal by special leave  is
\nfrom  the  judgment and order of the  Allahabad\t High  Court
\ndated  23rd December, 1971 in the Income Tax Reference.\t The
\nassessee is a limited company under the Indian Companies Act
\nand  derived  its income from the manufacture  and  sale  of
\nsugar  and confectionery. The assessment for the  assessment
\nyear 1958-59 was completed under the Indian Income Tax\tAct,
\n1922.  The Income Tax Officer in the said assessment,  inter
\nalia made the following additions besides others in  respect
\nof the following items:\n<\/p>\n
      (i) For cane cost\t\t\t       Rs.48,500\/-\n      (ii) For shortage in cane\t\t       Rs.67,500\/-\n      (iii) For salary of outstation staff     Rs.21,700\/-\n<\/pre>\n
    The assessee did not challenge the said assessment order
\npassed by the Income Tax Officer in so far as the  additions
\nof the above amounts in appeal or otherwise. It was the case
\nof the assessee that it did not appeal because it wanted  to
\nkeep good relations with the revenue although, according  to
\nthe  assessee,\tthe above additions made by the\t Income\t Tax
\nOfficer were totally unjustified and illegal.
\n    On 14th March, 1963 the Income Tax Officer issued notice
\nunder  section 274 read with section 271 of the\t Income\t Tax
\nAct,  1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) in respect of\t the
\nassessment year 1958-59 for imposing penalty.
\nThe  assessee company demurred. After considering the  reply
\nthe
\n696<\/span>
\nInspecting  Assistant  Commissioner  on\t 1st  October,\t1964
\nimposed\t a penalty of Rs.70,000 under section 274 read\twith
\nsection\t 271  of the Act holding inter alia that  there\t was
\nconcealment  of\t income to the tune of Rs.1,37,700  and\t the
\nmaximum\t penalty of Rs.1,06,317 was imposable in law  but  a
\nsum  of\t Rs.70,000 was imposed as  penalty  considering\t the
\nfacts and circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n
    The assessee preferred an appeal against the said order.
\nThe  Tribunal after considering the entire  matter,  reduced
\nthe  penalty  to Rs.5,000. The Tribunal referred  the  three
\nfollowing questions, two at the instance of the assessee and
\none  at the instance of the revenue, to the High  Court\t for
\ndetermination:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “1.  Whether, on the-facts and in the  circum-
\n\t      stances of the case, the Tribunal was  correct
\n\t      in holding that the provisions of section\t 271
\n\t      of the Income Tax.Act, 1961 are applicable  to
\n\t      the present case;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      2.’Whether,  there is any material to  warrant
\n\t      the  finding  that the  assessee\tcompany\t had
\n\t      concealed\t the  particulars of its  income  or
\n\t      deliberately furnished inaccurate\t particulars
\n\t      thereof  within the meaning of section  271(2)
\n\t      of the Income Tax Act, 1961; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      3.  Whether, on the facts and in\tthe  circum-
\n\t      stances  of the case, the Tribunal is  correct
\n\t      in   reducing   the  penalty   under   section
\n\t      271(1)(c) from Rs.70,000 to Rs.5,000?”
\n\t\t  The High Court was of the opinion that the
\n\t      third  question did not clearly bring out\t the
\n\t      matter  in dispute between the parties and  as
\n\t      such it was reframed as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “Whether,\t on  the facts and  in\tthe  circum-
\n\t      stances, the finding of the Tribunal that\t the
\n\t      assessee\thad  not  concealed  income  to\t the
\n\t      extent  of Rs.67,500 and Rs.21,700 within\t the
\n\t      meaning  of  section 271(1)(c) of\t the  Indian
\n\t      Income Tax Act, 1961, is correct in law?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The\t High  Court noted that the Income Tax\tOfficer\t had
\nmade  certain additions and disallowed certain expenses\t and
\nof  the various amounts disallowed only three  amounts\twere
\nrequired  to  be considered by the High\t Court\tnamely;\t (i)
\ninflation in price of sugar-cane of an amount of  Rs.48,500,\n<\/p>\n
(ii) excess shortage claimed for cane
\n697<\/span>
\nRs.67,500  and (iii) salary of out-station staff of  loading
\ncontractors  of Rs.21,700. So far as the first\tquestion  is
\nconcerned  the\tHigh  Court held in favour  of\trevenue\t and
\nanswered  the question in the negative. The answer  to\tthis
\nquestion is no longer in dispute here. So far as the  second
\nquestion  is concerned the High Court answered the  question
\nin  the nagative and in favour of the assessee. There is  no
\ndispute\t about that question too, in so far as there  is  no
\nappeal\tby  the revenue. As regards the third  question\t re-
\nframed\tas  mentioned hereinbefore, it was answered  by\t the
\nHigh Court in the affirmative and in favour of the  revenue.
\nThe assessee has come up in appeal to this Court challenging
\nthe  correctness of that answer. In this appeal we are\tcon-
\ncerned with the correctness or otherwise of the answer given
\nto  this  question and the appeal must be  confined  to\t the
\ncorrectness  of\t the answer given to the third\tquestion  as
\nreframed.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t Income Tax Officer in his assessment order  out  of
\nwhich  this penalty proceedings arose noted that there\twere
\nseveral\t disallowances in various accounts and he  mentioned
\naltogether 19 items totalling Rs.3,01,787. All these were on
\naccount of disallowances. Main item was shortage in cane and
\nthe  amount was Rs.67,500. Another items was salary of\tout-
\nstation\t staff and the amount was Rs.21,700. There was\talso
\naddition  of Rs.48,500 on account of inflation in the  price
\nof sugar cane. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in\t his
\norder  noted, inter alia three items, namely, (i)  inflation
\nin  price  of  sugar cane  Rs.48.500  (ii)  excess  shortage
\nclaimed\t for cane Rs.67,500 and (iii) salary  of  outstation
\nstaff of loading contractors Rs.21,700. It was found so\t far
\nas  the last item was concerned that the amount\t was  disal-
\nlowed  being a false debit. It was found that  the  assessee
\nattempted  to  understate  the income by  debiting  a  false
\nexpenditure  of Rs.48,500. The Inspecting Assistant  Commis-
\nsioner\tnoted that actual shortage was 21,143  Mds.  valuing
\nRs.26,429  while  the assessee had claimed  Rs.1,34,661\t for
\nshortage at 2%. The excess claim was also indicative of\t the
\nreal position that the shortage was fictitiously claimed  at
\na high figure. Faced with these facts the assessee eventual-
\nly surrendered Rs.67,500. Therefore, the Inspecting  Assist-
\nant Commisioner held that the assessee was certainly  reduc-
\ning the income by debiting false claims for excess  shortage
\nand  the action amounted to intentional concealment.  Salary
\namounting  to  Rs.21,700 paid by the  contractors  to  their
\nstaff  working at out-centres was debited in the  books\t and
\nwhile it was claimed that the staff working at these centres
\nwere actually employed by the company, on investigation\t the
\nclaim was found to be false. In this connec-\n<\/p>\n
698<\/span><\/p>\n
tion a reference was made to the statement of one Shri Kedar
\nNath  Kanodia. He had stated that he had employed five\tper-
\nsons  at  the out-centres and there was no employee  of\t the
\nmill working at the centres. The mill had kept there neither
\nany  clerk not any chowkidar. He confirmed that he had\tpaid
\nthe  employees\tout of his own funds and  had  categorically
\ndenied that they were the employees of the mill or that they
\nwere  paid  by it. In his statement he further\tstated\tthat
\nalthough  the staff was actually paid by him yet the  compa-
\nny’s  accountant  had obtained their  signatures  on  salary
\nsheets and thus inflated the expenses by raising false debit
\nin  the salary account. This procedure was followed  in\t re-
\nspect of other contractors also. The salary bill was thereby
\ninflated by Rs.21,700. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner
\ntherefore,  held that the assessee had concealed  income  to
\nthe extent of Rs.21,700. He had also come to the  conclusion
\nthat  the  cane purchases noted against these  last  entries
\nwere false and fictitious and the quantity covered by  these
\nentries\t was 31, 561 Mds. valuing at Rs.48,500. This  was  a
\nfalse  debit.  The  assessee  debited  the  three  items  of
\nRs.48,500,  Rs.67,500 and Rs.21.700. The  assessee  admitted
\nthat  these items represented income. It was also borne\t out
\nby records that the amounts were not included in the  return
\nby the company. The offence of deliberate under-statement of
\nincome\twas, thus clearly established according to  the\t In-
\nspecting  Assistant Commissioner. He, therefore, found\tthat
\nthe tax sought to be evaded came to Rs.70,914 and the  maxi-
\nmum  penalty worked out to Rs. 1,06,37 1. Having  regard  to
\nthe facts and circumstances of the case, he imposed a penal-
\nty of Rs.70,000.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tappeal the Income Tax Tribunal was of the view\tthat
\nnot  much turned upon the fact that the assessee  agreed  to
\nthe  additions of the amounts in the assessment. So  far  as
\nthe reliance placed upon Kanodia’s statement by the Inspect-
\ning  Assistant Commissioner was concerned, it had  no  rele-
\nvance  or  bearing to the facts of the\tassessment  year  in
\nquestion. He was not the contractor employed by the assessee
\nin  the year of account. He came in only for a\tlater  year.
\nOne  Avinash Chand was the contractor in the year  in  ques-
\ntion. He had specifically stated that he was responsible for
\nshortages.  He had also admitted that there was staff  main-
\ntained by the mill at the centre at which he was the loading
\ncontractor. In fact he had gone to the extent of and  stated
\nas to what staff was maintained in that centre; there was  a
\nman in charge of the centre, a weighment clerk, a cane clerk
\nand  three to four chowkidars. He had also stated that\tthey
\nwere  not his employees. According to the Tribunal in  these
\ncircumstances  the  assessee  could very  well\thave  argued
\nagainst the addition of the two sums,
\n699<\/span>
\nnamely, Rs.67,500 and Rs.21,700. But the assessee as we have
\nnoted had agreed to the amounts being included. The Tribunal
\nwas  of\t the view that the mere fact that the  amounts\twere
\nagreed to be taken into account by the assessee did not ipso
\nfacto indicate any criminality in its action to conceal\t any
\nportion\t of  the income. The Tribunal found that so  far  as
\nRs.48,500  was\tconcerned in the inflation in the  price  of
\nsugar-cane,  the previous history was against the  assessee.
\nIt had agreed to the similar additions in the earlier  years
\n1955-56\t and  1956-57  the Tribunal noted.  From  the  above
\nfacts, it was seen that the penalty was warranted in similar
\namount\tfor this year also, the Tribunal noted. Taking\tinto
\nconsideration  that the sum involved against this  year\t was
\nRs.48,500 the tribunal considered that a smaller penalty was
\nimposable. The Tribunal accordingly imposed a total  penalty
\nof Rs. 5,000.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t High  Court  reiterated that the  onus\t of  proving
\nconcealment  was on the revenue because the proceedings\t for
\npenalty were penal in character. In that view of the  matter
\nthe  High Court was of the opinion that so far as  Rs.48,500
\nwas concerned it was not proved that there was any  deliber-
\nate  concealment.  So  far  as\tthe  other  two\t amounts  of
\nRs.67,500  and\tRs.21,700 were concerned, it  was  contended
\nthat  the High Court noted the history of the order  of\t the
\nInspecting  Assistant Commissioner and the circumstances  of
\nthe case and the High Court was of the view that the  Tribu-
\nnal had not at all considered the fact that the value of the
\nshortage  was only Rs.26,429. According to the\tHigh  Court,
\nthe  Tribunal had brushed aside the fact that  the  assessee
\nhad agreed to the addition of this amount. According to\t the
\nHigh  Court, the Tribunal had not set aside the\t finding  of
\nthe  Inspecting\t Assistant Commissioner\t that  the  assessee
\nsurrendered  the amount of Rs.67,500 when it was faced\twith
\nfacts  which clearly established concealment.  The  assessee
\naccording  to  the  Inspecting\tAssistant  Commissioner\t had
\nsurrendered the amount only after the Income Tax Officer had
\nconclusive evidence in his possession that the amount repre-
\nsented\tits  income.  In other words, what  the\t High  Court
\nsought\tto  state was that acceptance by  the  assessee\t was
\nmaterial  to give proper weight to judge the criminality  of
\nthe action which according to the High Court was not  given.
\nThe  High  Court highlighted that so far  as  Rs.67,500\t was
\nconcerned  only on being faced with facts from\twhich  there
\ncould  possibly\t be no escape from the\tinference  that\t the
\namount\trepresented his income, that the assessee agreed  to
\nits  inclusion.\t The  High Court was of the  view  that\t the
\nTribunal  was  in error in brushing aside  consideration  of
\nthese aspects while considering the question of concealment.
\nIn  respect  of\t the addition of  Rs.21,700  the  Inspecting
\nAssistant
\n700<\/span>
\nCommissioner  had  relied upon the statement of\t Kedar\tNath
\nKanodia\t as  also the fact that the assessee  admitted\tthat
\nthis item represented its income. The Tribunal did not place
\nreliance  upon\tthe  statement of Kedar\t Nath  Kanodia.\t It,
\nhowever,  omitted  to take into account the  fact  that\t the
\nassessee  had  admitted\t that these  items  represented\t its
\nincome. The High Court was of the view that such  admissions
\nwere made by the assessee but the Tribunal had not  properly
\nappreciated  that aspect. Therefore in respect of these\t two
\nitems  the High Court was of the view that the Tribunal\t was
\nnot right in holding that the assessee was not guilty of any
\nconcealment.  So far as question No. 2 was  concerned  which
\ndealt  with Rs.48,500 the High Court confined itself to\t the
\ndisallowance in respect of purchase of cane. So far as\tthis
\nquestion was answered in favour of the assessee and there is
\nno  challenge by the revenue, it is not material  any  more.
\nThe  High Court came to the conclusion that the\t finding  of
\nthe Tribunal in respect of the concealment of Rs.48,500\t was
\nnot  justified\tin law. It was urged before us that  as\t the
\nsecond question which was in general form has been  answered
\nin  favour of the assessee, the third question\tas  reframed
\ncould  not  have been answered otherwise. We are  unable  to
\naccept\tthis contention. As evident from the  discussion  by
\nthe  High Court, the High Court confined to second  question
\nwith  regard to disallowance in respect of purchase of\tcane
\nthat amounted to Rs.48,500. So, therefore it cannot be\tsaid
\nthat in view of the answer given to the second question, the
\nthird  question was no longer open. The second question\t was
\nconfined to only Rs.48,500.\n<\/p>\n
    So far as whether there was justification for the answer
\ngiven  to the reframed third question or was proper  or\t not
\nhas  to be judged on the basis as to how far the High  Court
\nin  a reference could interfere with a finding of  fact\t and
\ntransform the same into a question of law on the ground that
\nthere has been non-consideration of all relevant facts.\t The
\nlaw on this point is quite settled.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t question was considered by this Court\texhaustively
\nin  Sree Meenakshi Mills Limited v. Commissioner of  Income-
\ntax,  Madras, 31 I.T.R. 28 where this Court reiterated\tthat
\nfindings on questions of pure fact arrived at by the  Tribu-
\nnal  were not to be disturbed by the High Court on a  refer-
\nence  unless it appeared that there was no  evidence  before
\nthe Tribunal upon which they, as reasonable men, could\tcome
\nto the conclusion to which they have come; and this was\t so,
\neven  though the High Court would on the evidence have\tcome
\nto  a conclusion entirely different from that of the  Tribu-
\nnal.  In other words, such a finding could be reviewed\tonly
\non the ground that there was no evi-\n<\/p>\n
701<\/span><\/p>\n
dence to support it or that it was perverse.\n<\/p>\n
    When a conclusion had been reached on an appreciation of
\na number of facts established by the evidence, whether\tthat
\nwas sound or not must be determined, not by considering\t the
\nweight to be attached to each single fact in isolation,\t but
\nby assessing the cumulative effect of all the facts in their
\nsetting\t as a whole. Where an ultimate finding on  an  issue
\nwas  an inference to be drawn from the facts found,  on\t the
\napplication of any principles of law, there would be a mixed
\nquestion  of law and fact, and the inference from the  facts
\nfound  was in such a case, a question of law. But where\t the
\nfinal determination of the issue equally with the finding or
\nascertainment of the basic facts did not involve the  appli-
\ncation of any principle of law, an inference from the  facts
\ncould not be regarded as one of law. The proposition that an
\ninference from facts was one of law was, therefore,  correct
\nin  its application to mixed questions of law and fact,\t but
\nnot to pure questions of fact. In the case of pure questions
\nof  fact an inference from the facts was as much a  question
\nof  fact as the evidence of the facts. In the  instant\tcase
\nthere is a finding of fact and unless it could be said\tthat
\nall  the relevant facts had not been considered in a  proper
\nlight, no question of law arises. In our opinion, the Tribu-
\nnal  took into account all the relevant facts. The  Tribunal
\nhad  been accused by the High Court of not taking into\tcon-
\nsideration  the\t fact that the assessee had  admitted  these
\namounts\t in  the assessment. To admit that  there  has\tbeen
\nexcess claim or disallowance is not the same thing as delib-
\nerate  concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.  At
\nleast in the background of the law as it stood at the  rele-
\nvant  time  that  was the position.  There  have  been\tsome
\nchanges\t subsequentiy  which  we have not  noticed  for\t the
\npresent purpose.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tOmar Salay Mohamed Sait v. Commissioner\t of  Income-<\/a>
\ntax,  Madras, 37 I.T.R. 15 1, this Court held that  the\t In-
\ncome-tax Appellate Tribunal was a fact finding tribunal\t and
\nif  it\tarrived\t at its own conclusions of  fact  after\t due
\nconsideration of the evidence before it the court could\t not
\ninterfere.  It was necessary, however, that every  fact\t for
\nand against the assessee must have been considered with\t due
\ncare  and  the\tTribunal must have given its  finding  in  a
\nmanner which would clearly indicate what were the  questions
\nwhich arose for determination, what was the evidence pro and
\ncontra\tin  regard  to each one of them and  what  were\t the
\nfindings  reached on the evidence on record before  it.\t The
\nconclusions  reached by the Tribunal should not be  coloured
\nby any irrelevant considerations or matters of prejudice and
\nif  there  were any circumstances which required to  be\t ex-
\nplained by the assessee, the
\n702<\/span>
\nassessee should be given an opportunity of doing so. In this
\ncase,  the  Tribunal had taken into consideration  the\tfact
\nthat  the assessee had admitted the additions as its  income
\nwhen  faced with non-disclosure in  assessment\tproceedings.
\nThe  High Court accused the Tribunal of not considering\t the
\ntime when the assessee admitted the additions. We find\tthat
\nit  was\t duly considered by the Tribunal. We find  that\t the
\nassessee admitted that these were the income of the assessee
\nbut  that  was not an admission that  there  was  deliberate
\nconcealment.  From agreeing to additions it does not  follow
\nthat the amount agreed to be added was concealed. There\t may
\nbe  hundred and one reasons for such admissions, i.e.,\twhen
\nthe assessee realises the true position it does not  dispute
\ncertain disallowances but that does not absolve the  revenue
\nto prove the mens rea of quasi criminal offence. In Udhavdas
\nKewalram  v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City<\/a>  1,  66
\nI.T.R.\t462,  the Court held that the  Income-tax  Appellate
\nTribunal performed a judicial function under the  Income-tax
\nAct and it was invested with authority to determine  finally
\nall  questions\tof fact. The Tribunal must, in\tdeciding  an
\nappeal,\t consider with due care all the material  facts\t and
\nrecord its findings on all contentions raised by the  asses-
\nsee  and the Commissioner in the light of the  evidence\t and
\nthe relevant law. The Tribunal was undoubtedly competent  to
\ndisagree  with the view of the Appellate  Assistant  Commis-
\nsioner, but in proceeding to do so, it had to act judicially
\ni.e.  to consider all the evidence in favour of and  against
\nthe  assessee. An order recorded on a review of only a\tpart
\nof  the evidence and ignoring the remaining  evidence  could
\nnot  be regarded as conclusively determinative of the  ques-
\ntion  of  fact\traised before the Tribunal. It\tis  for\t the
\nIncome-tax  authority to prove that a particular receipt  is
\ntaxable.  If, however, the receipt is accepted\tand  certain
\namount is accepted as taxable, it could be added but it\t was
\nnot accepted by the assessee, however, that it hard deliber-
\nately  furnished  inaccurate particulars  or  concealed\t any
\nincome. In our opinion, the Tribunal has properly considered
\nall  the evidence in the instant case. In  Rameshwar  Prasad
\nBagla  v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.,<\/a> 87I I.T.R.\t421,
\nthis Court again reiterated that it was for the Tribunal  to
\ndecide questions of fact, and the High Court in a  reference
\nunder  section\t66 of the Act as at that time could  not  go
\nbehind the Tribunal’s findings of fact. The High Court could
\nonly  lay down the law applicable to the facts found by\t the
\nTribunal. The High Court in a reference under section 66  of
\nthe  Act, as at that time could, however, go into the  ques-
\ntion  as  to  whether the conclusion of the  Tribunal  on  a
\nquestion  of fact was based upon relevant evidence.  If\t the
\nHigh Court found that there was no such evidence to  support
\nthe  finding  of fact of the Tribunal,\tthose  circumstances
\nwould give rise to a question of law and
\n703<\/span>
\ncould  be agitated in a reference. Here in the instant\tcase
\nthat  is not the position. This Court again reiterated\tthat
\nit  was also well-established that when a Tribunal acted  on
\nmaterial  which was irrelevant to the enquiry or  considered
\nmaterial which was partly relevant and partly irrelevant  or
\nbased on conjectures, surmises and suspicions and partly  on
\nevidence, then in such a situation an issue of law arose and
\nthe  finding of the Tribunal could be interfered with.\tThat
\nis  not\t the position here. In the instant case, it  is\t not
\nsaid  that  the\t Tribunal had acted on\tmaterial  which\t was
\nirrelevant  to the enquiry or considered material which\t was
\npartly relevant and partly irrelevant or based its  decision
\npartly\ton  conjectures, surmises and suspicions.  The\tHigh
\nCourt  was wrong in saying that proper weight had  not\tbeen
\ngiven to all the evidence and admissions made by the  asses-
\nsee. The High Court further observed that the time of admis-
\nsion  was  not noted by the Tribunal and this fact  had\t not
\nbeen properly appreciated by the Tribunal. That is also\t not
\ncorrect. The Tribunal had made additions during the  assess-
\nment proceedings. In any event that would be appreciation of
\nevidence  in a certain way, unless in  such  misappreciation
\nwhich amounted to non-appreciation no question of law  would
\narise. Non-appreciation may give rise to the question of law
\nbut  not  mere\tmisappreciation even if there  be  any\tfrom
\ncertain angle. Change of perspective in viewing a thing does
\nnot transform a question of fact into a question of law.
\n    In\tthe instant case we are of the opinion that in\tpre-
\nferring\t one view to another view of  factual  appreciation,
\nthe  High Court transgressed the limits of its\tjurisdiction
\nunder the Income-tax reference in answering the question  of
\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe  premises, we are of the opinion that  the\tHigh
\nCourt  was in error in so far as it held that  the  Tribunal
\nhad  acted incorrectly. We are further of the  opinion\tthat
\nthe  reframed question must be answered in  the\t affirmative
\nand in favour of the assessee.\n<\/p>\n
    The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of\t the
\nHigh  Court  in so far as answer to the question  No.  3  is
\nconcerned  is  set aside. The assessee is  entitled  to\t the
\ncosts of this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
P.S.S.\t\t\t\t\t\tAppeal\t al-\nlowed.\n704<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sir Shadi Lal Sugar And General … vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi on 31 July, 1987 Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 2008, 1987 SCR (3) 692 Author: S Mukharji Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J) PETITIONER: SIR SHADI LAL SUGAR AND GENERAL MILLSLTD. & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI. DATE […]<\/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-129370","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSir Shadi Lal Sugar And General ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi on 31 July, 1987 - 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\/sir-shadi-lal-sugar-and-general-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-on-31-july-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sir Shadi Lal Sugar And General ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi on 31 July, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sir-shadi-lal-sugar-and-general-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-on-31-july-1987\" \/>\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=\"1987-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-01T01:36:11+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\\\/sir-shadi-lal-sugar-and-general-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-on-31-july-1987#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sir-shadi-lal-sugar-and-general-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-on-31-july-1987\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sir Shadi Lal Sugar And General … vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi on 31 July, 1987\",\"datePublished\":\"1987-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-01T01:36:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sir-shadi-lal-sugar-and-general-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-on-31-july-1987\"},\"wordCount\":3939,\"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\\\/sir-shadi-lal-sugar-and-general-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-on-31-july-1987#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sir-shadi-lal-sugar-and-general-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-on-31-july-1987\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sir-shadi-lal-sugar-and-general-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-on-31-july-1987\",\"name\":\"Sir Shadi Lal Sugar And General ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi on 31 July, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1987-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-01T01:36:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sir-shadi-lal-sugar-and-general-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-on-31-july-1987#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sir-shadi-lal-sugar-and-general-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-on-31-july-1987\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sir-shadi-lal-sugar-and-general-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-on-31-july-1987#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sir Shadi Lal Sugar And General … vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi on 31 July, 1987\"}]},{\"@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":"Sir Shadi Lal Sugar And General ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi on 31 July, 1987 - 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\/sir-shadi-lal-sugar-and-general-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-on-31-july-1987","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sir Shadi Lal Sugar And General ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi on 31 July, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sir-shadi-lal-sugar-and-general-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-on-31-july-1987","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1987-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-01T01:36:11+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\/sir-shadi-lal-sugar-and-general-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-on-31-july-1987#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sir-shadi-lal-sugar-and-general-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-on-31-july-1987"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sir Shadi Lal Sugar And General … vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi on 31 July, 1987","datePublished":"1987-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-01T01:36:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sir-shadi-lal-sugar-and-general-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-on-31-july-1987"},"wordCount":3939,"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\/sir-shadi-lal-sugar-and-general-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-on-31-july-1987#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sir-shadi-lal-sugar-and-general-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-on-31-july-1987","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sir-shadi-lal-sugar-and-general-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-on-31-july-1987","name":"Sir Shadi Lal Sugar And General ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi on 31 July, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1987-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-01T01:36:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sir-shadi-lal-sugar-and-general-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-on-31-july-1987#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sir-shadi-lal-sugar-and-general-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-on-31-july-1987"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sir-shadi-lal-sugar-and-general-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-on-31-july-1987#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sir Shadi Lal Sugar And General … vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi on 31 July, 1987"}]},{"@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\/129370","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=129370"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129370\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129370"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129370"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129370"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}