{"id":144194,"date":"2010-09-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-kuruvinakunnel-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-28-september-2010"},"modified":"2018-10-16T19:41:35","modified_gmt":"2018-10-16T14:11:35","slug":"jose-kuruvinakunnel-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-28-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-kuruvinakunnel-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-28-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Jose Kuruvinakunnel vs The Income Tax Officer on 28 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Jose Kuruvinakunnel vs The Income Tax Officer on 28 September, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 17738 of 2010(N)\n\n\n1. JOSE KURUVINAKUNNEL,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON\n\n Dated :28\/09\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                  P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.\n            ..............................................................................\n                     W.P.(C) No. 17738 OF 2010\n             .........................................................................\n                 Dated this the 28th September, 2010\n\n\n\n                                  J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      The petitioner is challenging Exts.P9 order passed by the<\/p>\n
second respondent Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ext P10<\/p>\n
concurring order dated the same day, passed by the Accountant<\/p>\n
Member and also Ext.P14 order dismissing Exts.P11 to P13<\/p>\n
applications for ‘rectification of the errors’ filed under Section<\/p>\n
254(2) of the Income Tax Act.\n<\/p>\n
     2. The sequence of events is as follows: The petitioner is<\/p>\n
an assessee on the files of the first respondent . Assessment was<\/p>\n
completed in respect of the assessment years 1996-97 to 2000-<\/p>\n
01, which however was sought to be re-opened by the assessing<\/p>\n
authority for the reasons recorded, stated as identical for all<\/p>\n
the years as borne by Exts. P1 and P2 produced in respect of<\/p>\n
the assessment years                   1996-97 and 1998-99. The original<\/p>\n
assessment for the year 1996-97 was a scrutiny                                            assessment<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 17738 OF 2010<\/p>\n
                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
under Section 143(3) of the Act and for the subsequent years,<\/p>\n
the assessment was completed by way of summary assessment<\/p>\n
under    Section 143(l) (a)    of the Act. Re-opening of      the<\/p>\n
assessments in respect of the above different years was<\/p>\n
subjected to challenge    by filing appeals before the     second<\/p>\n
respondent, wherein Ext.P3 common order was passed by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal on 08.12.2006 holding that there was absolutely no<\/p>\n
reason for re-opening the assessment for the year 1996-97.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the assessment re-opened in respect of the said year<\/p>\n
was set aside, observing that        the assessing officer had<\/p>\n
proceeded,    taking shelter under   Section 14 of the Act, for<\/p>\n
making a rowing       and fishing enquiry. In respect of the<\/p>\n
assessment year 1997-98, the Tribunal observed in paragraph<\/p>\n
No.15 of Ext.P3 order that the reasons stated by the assessing<\/p>\n
officer were the same as given to the assessment year 1996-97.<\/p>\n
It was further observed by the second respondent that formation<\/p>\n
of the belief should be based on some definite, concrete and<\/p>\n
reliable materials and thus came to the finding that in respect of<\/p>\n
the assessment year 1997-98, it was only vague and hence<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 17738 OF 2010<\/p>\n
                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
interference was made in respect of the said year as well .<\/p>\n
      3. However with regard to the       remaining years, it was<\/p>\n
observed by the Tribunal that the there was lack of materials to<\/p>\n
decide the issue and accordingly, the matter was remanded to<\/p>\n
the   Commissioner of    Income Tax       (Appeals) with a specific<\/p>\n
direction to   consider the matters separately, as specifically<\/p>\n
observed in paragraph 19. Pursuant to Ext.P3 order passed by<\/p>\n
the Tribunal, the matter was re-considered by the Commissioner<\/p>\n
of Income Tax who passed Ext. P4 order observing that the<\/p>\n
reasons   recorded by the assessing officer      in respect of the<\/p>\n
assessment year 1998-99 were the same as in respect of the<\/p>\n
assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98. After referring to the<\/p>\n
facts and figures in respect of the different assessment years and<\/p>\n
also taking note of the specific direction contained in the remand<\/p>\n
order passed by the Tribunal vide Ext. P3, it was held by the<\/p>\n
Commissioner that initiation of the proceedings under       Section<\/p>\n
148 for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2000-2001 was not<\/p>\n
valid and accordingly, the appeals preferred by the petitioner<\/p>\n
were allowed.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 17738 OF 2010<\/p>\n
                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
     4. Met with the situation, the Revenue preferred     appeals<\/p>\n
(Exts.P5 to P7) before the second respondent. After hearing the<\/p>\n
matter, the Second respondent passed Ext. P9 order remanding<\/p>\n
the matter to the Commissioner      for considering the case on<\/p>\n
merits, after arriving at a finding that there were valid reasons<\/p>\n
for re-opening of the assessment by the assessing officer. The<\/p>\n
Judicial Member relied on the law declared by the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd [291 ITR<\/p>\n
500 (SC), while     the  Accountant Member wrote a concurring<\/p>\n
order as borne by Ext.P10, however observing in paragraph 2<\/p>\n
that there was no direct application of the decision rendered in<\/p>\n
291 ITR 500 (cited supra). But it was made clear that the<\/p>\n
matter had to be      considered by the appellate authority   on<\/p>\n
merits, as ordered by the Judicial Member, observing that the<\/p>\n
reasons recorded by the Assessing officer for re-opening of the<\/p>\n
assessment satisfied the conditions laid down under Section 147<\/p>\n
of the Act.   Contending that the said verdict    passed by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal was very much contrary to the verdict already passed<\/p>\n
by the Tribunal as borne by Ext. P3 and that it was not correct<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 17738 OF 2010<\/p>\n
                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
or proper to have taken a different view, being a Co-ordinate<\/p>\n
Bench, the assessee preferred Exts.P11 to P13 applications for<\/p>\n
rectification, stating that there was error apparent on the face of<\/p>\n
the records. The said petitions were considered by the second<\/p>\n
respondent     and they were dismissed as per Ext. P14 order,<\/p>\n
holding that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the<\/p>\n
records, so as to invoke the power under Section 254(2) of the<\/p>\n
Income Tax Act, which in turn is under challenge in this Writ<\/p>\n
Petition.\n<\/p>\n
      5.   The respondents have filed a statement seeking to<\/p>\n
sustain the course and procedure pursued by the Department<\/p>\n
as well as the second respondent\/Tribunal, contending that there<\/p>\n
was no mistake to be rectified invoking the power under Section<\/p>\n
254 (2) of the Income Tax Act and that no interference           is<\/p>\n
warranted in the Writ Petition .     It is further stated that, as<\/p>\n
observed by the Judicial Member of the Tribunal in Ext.P9, the<\/p>\n
decision rendered by the Apex Court in 291 ITR 500 was not<\/p>\n
available when Ext. P3 order was passed by the Tribunal earlier<\/p>\n
or when Ext. P4 order was passed by the appellate authority<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 17738 OF 2010<\/p>\n
                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
pursuant to the remand and it was in the said circumstance, that<\/p>\n
the matter was considered afresh in the appeals preferred by<\/p>\n
the Revenue passing Exts.P9\/P10 orders. It is also contended<\/p>\n
in the statement that Ext.P3 order passed by the Tribunal in<\/p>\n
respect of the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 is not<\/p>\n
correct or sustainable in view of the law declared by the Apex<\/p>\n
Court in 291 ITR 500. It is also contended that ‘rectification<\/p>\n
petitions’ by way of Exts. P11 to P13 filed by the petitioner<\/p>\n
virtually amount to Review of Exts.P9\/P10 orders passed by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal; and that there is no such power of       review for the<\/p>\n
Tribunal, as   made clear by the Apex Court in          Assistant<\/p>\n
Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock<\/p>\n
Exchange Ltd<\/a> ( [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC)).\n<\/p>\n
      6. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit in response to<\/p>\n
the statement filed by the Department, re-iterating the<\/p>\n
contentions raised in the Writ Petition.   The learned Counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioner submits that the Tribunal, having taken a view<\/p>\n
already, vide Ext.P3, in respect of the assessment years 1996-97<\/p>\n
and 1997-98     and further since the reasons stated for      re-<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 17738 OF 2010<\/p>\n
                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
opening the assessment     in respect of the subsequent      years<\/p>\n
having been declared as the same, on appreciation of the factual<\/p>\n
position by the Commissioner, it was no more open          for the<\/p>\n
Tribunal   to have taken a deviation and to have arrived at a<\/p>\n
different finding as per Exts. P9\/P10, than the one        already<\/p>\n
arrived at vide Ext.P3, which according to the petitioner is not in<\/p>\n
conformity with the settled principles of law declared vide CIT<\/p>\n
vs. Travancore Titanium Products Ltd.<\/a>(Ker.)_(2003) 183<\/p>\n
CTR (Ker.) 473. (at page 478).\n<\/p>\n
      7.  Coming to the merits of the case,     whether there is<\/p>\n
mistake apparent on the face of the records, so as to         have<\/p>\n
invoked the power of rectification under Section 254(2) of the<\/p>\n
IT Act, it remains a fact that      the Tribunal considered the<\/p>\n
matter\/reasons for reopening      the assessment      and held in<\/p>\n
respect of the assessment order for 1996-97 and 1997-98 that<\/p>\n
the materials were not sufficient so as to have pursued such an<\/p>\n
exercise and accordingly, the   assessment was set aside      and<\/p>\n
relief was extended to the petitioner.    But in respect of the<\/p>\n
subsequent years, it was observed in para 19 of Ext. P3, that<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 17738 OF 2010<\/p>\n
                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
there was no material before the Tribunal to have analysed the<\/p>\n
factual position in respect of the said assessment years ; more<\/p>\n
so since the    appellate authority had relied on   the previous<\/p>\n
assessment years, as the basis to have pursued similar action in<\/p>\n
respect of the subsequent years        and it was in the said<\/p>\n
circumstance, that the Commissioner of Appeals was directed to<\/p>\n
re-consider the matter with specific reference to the reasons in<\/p>\n
respect of    the said subsequent years    as well and to pass<\/p>\n
appropriate orders (thus explaining the scope of remand in<\/p>\n
Ext.P3).\n<\/p>\n
     8. As mentioned above, pursuant to Ext. P3, the matter<\/p>\n
was considered by the Commissioner of Appeals and observed<\/p>\n
that the reasons were the same .       The course pursued,    as<\/p>\n
ordered by the Tribunal in respect of the assessment years of<\/p>\n
1996-97 and 1997-98, was hence ordered to be pursued in<\/p>\n
respect of subsequent years as well. Accordingly, the appeals<\/p>\n
preferred by the petitioner\/assessee in respect of the years<\/p>\n
1998-99 to 2000-01 were also allowed;        which in turn were<\/p>\n
subjected to challenge by the Revenue, by filing Exts.P5 to P7<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 17738 OF 2010<\/p>\n
                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
Appeals before the second respondent. It was during the<\/p>\n
pendency of the proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal, that<\/p>\n
the Apex Court passed the verdict as reported in 291 ITR 500,<\/p>\n
based on which, Ext. P9 order was passed, upholding the reasons<\/p>\n
stated by the assessing officer to reopen the assessment and<\/p>\n
thus remanding the matter after allowing the appeals preferred<\/p>\n
by the respondents     for fresh consideration of merits by the<\/p>\n
Commissioner of Appeals.        In   Ext.P10 order, though the<\/p>\n
Accountant Member      of the Tribunal    has observed that the<\/p>\n
decision rendered by the Apex Court in 291 ITR 500, as such, is<\/p>\n
not applicable to the case in hand, a proper reasoning has been<\/p>\n
given sustaining the reopening of the assessment, concurring<\/p>\n
with the directions given in Ext. P9 and remanding the matter to<\/p>\n
be considered on merits.\n<\/p>\n
           9. In short, when Ext.P3 order was passed     by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal, the remand in respect of the assessment years\/orders<\/p>\n
for 1998-99 to 2000-01 was for ‘want of necessary materials’,<\/p>\n
but for which, the Tribunal    would have passed similar orders<\/p>\n
as in the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98. This being the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 17738 OF 2010<\/p>\n
                                 10<\/span><\/p>\n
position, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has taken a ‘U’ turn,<\/p>\n
showing some or other inconsistency with regard to the earlier<\/p>\n
order (Ext.P3), while passing Ext. P9\/P10      or that the matter<\/p>\n
ought to have been referred to a ‘larger Bench’ for consideration.<\/p>\n
There is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the records<\/p>\n
and as such, the prayer sought for vide Exts. P11 to P13 is quite<\/p>\n
wrong and misconceived, which has been rightly declined in<\/p>\n
Ext.P14. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved of the order passed<\/p>\n
by the Tribunal vide Exts.P9\/P10 in any manner, the remedy of<\/p>\n
the petitioner can only be by way of further appeals to be<\/p>\n
preferred before this Court, invoking the power under Section<\/p>\n
260A of the Income Tax Act. This Court finds it difficult to accept<\/p>\n
the preposition mooted by the petitioner. The Writ Petition fails<\/p>\n
and the same is dismissed accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                  P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
\n                                           JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
lk<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Jose Kuruvinakunnel vs The Income Tax Officer on 28 September, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 17738 of 2010(N) 1. JOSE KURUVINAKUNNEL, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, … Respondent 2. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, For Petitioner :SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN For Respondent :SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-144194","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJose Kuruvinakunnel vs The Income Tax Officer on 28 September, 2010 - 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\/jose-kuruvinakunnel-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-28-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jose Kuruvinakunnel vs The Income Tax Officer on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-kuruvinakunnel-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-28-september-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-16T14:11:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-kuruvinakunnel-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-28-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-kuruvinakunnel-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-28-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jose Kuruvinakunnel vs The Income Tax Officer on 28 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-16T14:11:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-kuruvinakunnel-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-28-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1866,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-kuruvinakunnel-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-28-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-kuruvinakunnel-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-28-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-kuruvinakunnel-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-28-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Jose Kuruvinakunnel vs The Income Tax Officer on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-16T14:11:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-kuruvinakunnel-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-28-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-kuruvinakunnel-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-28-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-kuruvinakunnel-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-28-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jose Kuruvinakunnel vs The Income Tax Officer on 28 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Jose Kuruvinakunnel vs The Income Tax Officer on 28 September, 2010 - 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\/jose-kuruvinakunnel-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-28-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jose Kuruvinakunnel vs The Income Tax Officer on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-kuruvinakunnel-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-28-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-16T14:11:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-kuruvinakunnel-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-28-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-kuruvinakunnel-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-28-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jose Kuruvinakunnel vs The Income Tax Officer on 28 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-16T14:11:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-kuruvinakunnel-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-28-september-2010"},"wordCount":1866,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-kuruvinakunnel-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-28-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-kuruvinakunnel-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-28-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-kuruvinakunnel-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-28-september-2010","name":"Jose Kuruvinakunnel vs The Income Tax Officer on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-16T14:11:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-kuruvinakunnel-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-28-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-kuruvinakunnel-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-28-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-kuruvinakunnel-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-28-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jose Kuruvinakunnel vs The Income Tax Officer on 28 September, 2010"}]},{"@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\/144194","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=144194"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144194\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144194"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=144194"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=144194"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}