{"id":149038,"date":"1958-11-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1958-11-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-teja-singh-on-5-november-1958"},"modified":"2017-06-29T21:03:14","modified_gmt":"2017-06-29T15:33:14","slug":"commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-teja-singh-on-5-november-1958","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-teja-singh-on-5-november-1958","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs S.Teja Singh on 5 November, 1958"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs S.Teja Singh on 5 November, 1958<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1959 AIR 352, \t\t 1959 SCR Supl. (1) 394<\/div>\n
Author: T V Aiyyar<\/div>\n
Bench: Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nS.TEJA SINGH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n05\/11\/1958\n\nBENCH:\nAIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA\nBENCH:\nAIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nSARKAR, A.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1959 AIR  352\t\t  1959 SCR  Supl. (1) 394\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1960 SC1016\t (10)\n R\t    1962 SC 663\t (7)\n RF\t    1963 SC1066\t (13)\n RF\t    1975 SC1660\t (3)\n RF\t    1978 SC1239\t (12)\n RF\t    1986 SC 358\t (21)\n RF\t    1988 SC 587\t (11)\n R\t    1992 SC   1\t (59,74)\n\n\nACT:\nIncome-tax-Penalty-New assessee-Failure to send estimate  of\ntax-Absence of notice to the assessee-Competency of  Income-\ntax Officer to levy penalty-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922\t (XI\nof 1922), ss. 18A(3), 18A(9), 22, 23, 28.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe respondent who bad not been assessed to income-tax prior\nto the assessment year 1948-49 made suo motu returns on July\n4,  1949,  showing  an income of Rs. 4,494  and\t Rs.  31,646\nrespectively, for the assessment years 1948-49 and  1949-5o,\nbut  failed to send an estimate of the tax on his income  as\nprovided  in s. 18A(3) of the Indian Income-tax\t Act,  1922.\nThe  Incometax Officer took action under s. 28 read with  s.\n18A(9) of the Act and imposed a penalty on him for the years\n1948-49 and 1949-50.\n395\nThe  Appellate\tTribunal held that the\torder  imposing\t the\npenalty\t was ultra vires on the ground that s. 28 would,  in\nterms, apply only when a person failed to furnish the return\nwhen he was required so to do by notice under s. 22 or s. 34\nof  the\t Act, and that there could be no such  notices\twith\nreference to estimates of tax on income to be sent under  s.\n18A(3).\t The High Court, on reference, agreed with the\tview\nof the Tribunal.\nHeld,  that  in view of the legal fiction  contained  in  s.\n18A(9) of the Act that when an assessee has failed to comply\nwith s.\t  18A(3)  he  \"shall  be deemed to  have  failed  to\nfurnish the return of his total income and the provisions of\ns.  28,\t so far as may be, shall apply\taccordingly  \",\t the\nfailure\t to  send  an estimate of the tax  under  s.  18A(3)\nshould\tbe  treated as failure to furnish return  of  income\nunder  s. 22.  Accordingly, it was competent to the  Income-\ntax authorities to impose a penalty under S. 28 read with s.\n18A(9)(b)  where there has been a failure to comply with  s.\n18A(3).\nThe relevant provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act,  1922,\nare set out in the judgment.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 122 of 1957.
\nAppeal from the order dated November 4, 1954, of the  Punjab
\nHigh  Court (Circuit Bench) at Delhi in Civil Reference\t No.
\n15 of 1953.\n<\/p>\n
R.   Ganapathy\tIyer,  R. H. Dhebar and D.  Gupta,  for\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
P.   M. Mukhi, Gopal Singh for Udhai Bhan Choudhry, for\t the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
P.   M. Mukhi and Ganpat Rai, for Dalmia Jain Aviation\tLtd.
\n(now Asia Udyog Ltd.) (Intervener).\n<\/p>\n
1958.\tNovember 5. The Judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\nVENKATARAMA AIYAR, J.-This is an appeal against the judgment
\nof the High Court of Punjab in a reference under s. 66(1) of
\nthe Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to  as
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
The facts are that the respondent, had not been assessed  to
\nincome-tax prior to the assessment year 1948-49.  On July 4,
\n1949,  he  made suo motu returns showing an  income  of\t Rs.
\n4,494  for  the accounting year 1947-48 being  the  previous
\nyear  for the assessment year 1948-49 and an income  of\t Rs.
\n31,646 for
\n396<\/span>
\nthe accounting year 1948-49 being the previous year for\t the
\nassessment  year 1949-50.  By orders dated August 25,  1949,
\nthe   Income-tax  Officer  assessed  the  income   for\t the
\nassessment year 1948-49 at Rs. 6,277 and for the  assessment
\nyear 1949-50 at Rs. 36,281.  The correctness of these orders
\nis  not\t in question before us.\t We are concerned  in  these
\nproceedings with the vires of an order, which the Income-tax
\nOfficer\t made on October 9, 1950, under s. 28 read with\t ss.
\n18A(3) and 18A(9) of the Act.  It will be convenient to\t set
\nout  these provisions, so far as they are material  for\t the
\npurpose of this appeal.\t Section 18A(3) provides that :
\n”  Any\tperson\twho has not hitherto  been  assessed  shall,
\nbefore the 15th day of March in each financial year, if\t his
\ntotal income of the period which would be the previous\tyear
\nfor  an assessment for the financial year next following  is
\nlikely to exceed six thousand rupees, send to the Income-tax
\nOfficer\t an estimate of the tax payable by him on that\tpart
\nof  his income to which the provisions of section 18 do\t not
\napply  of  the said previous year calculated in\t the  manner
\nlaid  down in sub-section (1), and shall pay the amount,  on
\nsuch of the dates specified in that sub-section as have\t not
\nexpired,  by instalments which may be revised  according  to
\nthe proviso to sub-section (2).”\n<\/p>\n
Section 18A(9) is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
”   If\tthe  Income-tax\t Officer,  in  the  course  of\t any
\nproceedings  in connection with the regular  assessment,  is
\nsatisfied that any assessee-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  has  furnished under sub-section (2) or  sub-section(3)
\nestimates of the tax payable by him which he knew or\t had
\nreason to believe to be untrue, or\n<\/p>\n
(b)  has without reasonable cause failed to comply with\t the
\nprovisions of subsection (3), the assessee shall be  deemed,
\nin the case referred to in clause (a), to have\tdeliberately
\nfurnished  inaccurate particulars of his income, and in\t the
\ncase  referred to in clause (b), to have failed\t to  furnish
\nthe  return  of\t his total income;  and\t the  provisions  of
\nsection 28, so far’ as may be, shall apply accordingly:”.\n<\/p>\n
397<\/span><\/p>\n
Then, there is a proviso which imposes a limit on the amount
\nof penalty, which can be levied.  Section 28 of the Act runs
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
(1) ” If the Income-tax Officer……. in the course of\t any
\nproceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person-\n<\/p>\n
(a)has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return
\nof  his\t total income which he was required  to\t furnish  by
\nnotice\tgiven  under sub-section (1) or\t subsection  (2)  of
\nsection\t 22  or section 34 or has without  reasonable  cause
\nfailed\tto  furnish it within the time allowed\tand  in\t the
\nmanner required by such notice, or\n<\/p>\n
(b)has\twithout\t reasonable cause failed to  comply  with  a
\nnotice under subsection (4) of section 22 or subsection\t (2)
\nof section 23, or\n<\/p>\n
(c)has\t concealed   the  particulars  of  his\t income\t  or
\ndeliberately   furnished  inaccurate  particulars  of\tsuch
\nincome,
\nhe…..\t may  direct that such person shall pay\t by  way  of
\npenalty, in the case referred to in clause (a), in  addition
\nto  the\t amount\t of the income-tax  and\t supertax,  if\tany,
\npayable by him a sum not exceeding one and a half times that
\namount, and in the cases referred to in clauses (b) and (c),
\nin  addition to any tax payable by him, a sum not  exceeding
\none and a half times the amount of the income-tax and super-
\ntax, if any, which would have been avoided if the income  as
\nreturned  by  such person had been accepted as\tthe  correct
\nincome:”.\n<\/p>\n
The  Income-tax\t Officer  held that as\tthe  respondent\t had
\nfailed\tto  send  an estimate of the tax on  his  income  as
\nprovided  in  s.  18A(3) he became liable  to  be  proceeded
\nagainst\t under s. 28, and accordingly imposed a\t penalty  of
\nRs. 40 for the year 1948-49 and Rs. 1,000 for the year 1949-\n<\/p>\n
50.    On  appeal,  the\t Appellate  Assistant\tCommissioner
\nconfirmed  the order in so far as it imposed a\tpenalty\t for
\nthe year 1948-49 but set it aside as regards the year  1949-
\n50  on the ground that by reason of the assessment  for\t the
\nyear 1948-49 the respondent ceased to be a new assessee\t for
\n1949-50,  and  that,  in  consequence,\ts.  18A(3)  had\t  no
\napplication.   Against the order cancelling the penalty\t for
\n1949-50,
\n398<\/span>
\nthe Income-tax Officer preferred an appeal to the  Appellate
\nTribunal,  which  disagreed with the view of  the  Appellate
\nAssistant  Commissioner that the respondent was no longer  a
\nnew assessee within s. 18A(3) of the Act, but held that\t the
\norder of the lncome-tax Officer imposing a penalty under  s.
\n28  was ultra vires, because that section would,  in  terms,
\napply  only when a person failed to furnish the return\twhen
\nhe  was required so to do by notice under s. 22 or s. 34  of
\nthe  Act,  and\tthat there could be  Do\t such  notices\twith
\nreference to estimates of tax on income to be sent under  s.
\n18A(3).\t  In  the result, the appeal was dismissed.  On\t the
\napplication  of\t the appellant, the  Tribunal  referred\t the
\nfollowing question for the opinion of the High\t  Court:
\n” Whether on a true construction of Section 18A(9) (b) read
\nwith section 28 of the Indian Income-tax Act,1922, a penalty
\nmay  be\t imposed  for a total failure  to  comply  with\t the
\nprovisions of Section 18A(3) of the said Act ?”
\nThe reference was heard by Bhandari, C. J., and Falshaw, J.,
\nwho  agreed  with  the Tribunal that the  conditions  as  to
\nnotice\tlaid down in s. 22(1) or s. 22(2) must be  satisfied
\neven  when  action  was sought to be taken under  s.  28  in
\nrespect\t of a failure to comply with s. 18A(3), and that  as
\nthose conditions had not been satisfied, the order  imposing
\npenalty\t was bad.  The appellant applied for  a\t certificate
\nunder  s. 66A(2) of the Act, and the same was  granted,\t and
\nthat is how the appeal comes before us.\n<\/p>\n
The sole question that arises for our determination in this
\nappeal is whether under s. 28(1) read with s.\t  18A(9)  of
\nthe  Act, it is competent to the Income-tax  authorities  to
\nimpose\ta penalty on a person who has failed to comply\twith
\ns. 18A(3) of the Act.  In answering it in the negative,\t the
\nlearned\t Judges\t in the court below were  influenced  almost
\nexclusively  by the terms of s. 28 which they held  did\t not
\ncover-\tfailure\t to comply with s. 18A(3).   Now,  s.  28(1)
\nprovides for penalty being imposed in three classes of cases
\nwhich are mentioned respectively in cls. (a), (b). and\t(c).
\nClause (b) deals with cases where there has been failure
\n399<\/span>
\nto produce documents or accounts or other evidence which the
\nassessee  had been required to produce under s. 22(4) or  s.
\n23(2)  of the Act, and that is not relevant for the  purpose
\nof  the\t present discussion.  Then, there are cls.  (a)\t and\n<\/p>\n
(c), and they have reference, stating it in plain  language,
\ncl.  (a) to failure to make a return and cl. (c)  to  making
\nfalse  return.\tNow, the learned Judges observe that  if  an
\nestimate of the tax is furnished under s. 18A(3) and that is
\ndeliberately  inaccurate, that will fall under\ts.  28(1)(c)
\nread  with s. 18A (9)(a) and penalty could be imposed  under
\nthat section, but that that could not be done when there  is
\nfailure to furnish an estimate as required by s. 18A(3), be-
\ncause  sub-s.  (1) of s. 28 would apply only when  a  person
\nfailed to furnish the return when he had been required to do
\nso  by\tnotice under s. 22(1) or s. 22(2) or s. 34,  or\t had
\nfailed\tto  furnish it within the time allowed\tand  in\t the
\nmanner\trequired by the notice, and that there could  be  no
\nsuch  notice with reference to s. 18A(3).  Say\tthe  learned
\nJudges:\n<\/p>\n
 ”  In\tthe  first  place, a person who\t fails\tto  send  an
\nestimate under section 18A(3) cannot be said to have  failed
\nto  furnish  the  return of his total income  which  he\t was
\nrequired  to  furnish in response to a notice  issued  under
\nsection\t 22 or section 34; secondly, the said person  cannot
\nbe  said  to  have failed to furnish  it.  within  the\ttime
\nallowed\t and  in the manner required by\t such  notice,\tfor,
\nestimates under section 18A(3) must be furnished before\t the
\n15th  March in the financial year immediately preceding\t the
\nyear  of  assessment  whereas the returns  required  by\t the
\nnotices\t under sections 22 and 34 can be furnished at  later
\ndates.”\n<\/p>\n
With respect, the error in this reasoning lies in this\tthat
\nit  fails to give due effect to the fiction contained in  s.
\n18A(9)(b)  of  the  Act.   Under  that\tprovision,  when  an
\nassessee  has failed to comply with s. 18A(3) he ” shall  be
\ndeemed\tto  have failed to furnish the return of  his  total
\nincome\tand the provisions of section 28, so far as may\t be,
\nshall  ‘apply  accordingly.”  In other\twords’\tby  a  legal
\nfiction the failure to send an estimate of the tax under  s.
\n18A(3) is treated as a
\n400<\/span>
\nfailure\t to furnish return of income under s. 22.  It  is  a
\nnecessary  implication of this fiction that the estimate  of
\ntax  on\t the income to be submitted under s. 18A(3)  is,  in
\nfact, different from the return to be furnished under s. 22,
\nand to appreciate the full significance of this fiction,  it
\nis necessary to examine what the distinction is.  Under s. 3
\nof the Act, the tax is payable on the income of the previous
\nyear.\tA  statement of that income can\t be  furnished\tonly
\nafter that year ends, and s. 22 enacts provisions as to when
\nit is to be furnished in the assessment year.\tSub-sections
\n(1) and (2) provide for notices being given and the assessee
\nis  required  to  file his statement of\t income\t within\t the
\nperiod\tprovided therein, and it is this statement  that  is
\ntermed\t” return “. Section 18A(3), however, relates to\t the
\nsending\t of  a\tstatement  of  tax  on\tthe  income  of\t the
\naccounting  year before the 15th day of March of  that\tyear
\nitself,\t and  that statement is termed not a return  but  an
\nestimate,  and quite rightly, because in the very nature  of
\nit,  it\t can only be that.  A person who sends\tan  estimate
\nunder s. 18A(3) has also to send a return of his income\t for
\nthe accounting year under s. 22, and sub-ss. (4) and (5)  of
\ns.  18A provide for adjustment of advance tax paid under  s.
\n18A(3)\ttowards\t the tax as finally computed  under  s.\t 23.
\nThus,  there  is  a clear distinction between  a  return  of
\nincome\tunder  s. 22, which can only be during the  year  of
\nassessment and an estimate of tax on income under s. 18A(3),
\nwhich can only be in the year of account.\n<\/p>\n
It  is in the light of this distinction that the  effect  of
\nthe legal fiction enacted ins. 18A(9) (b) that when a person
\nfails  to  send an estimate of tax on his  income  under  s.
\n18A(3)\the shall be deemed to have failed to furnish  return
\nof  his\t income,  will have to be  judged.   The  respondent
\ncontends that its effect is only to place the estimate to be
\nsent under s. 18A(3) on the same footing as the return under
\ns. 22 for purposes of s. 28, and that that does not abrogate
\nthe  other  conditions laid down in that  section  on  which
\nalone action could be taken thereunder and penalty  imposed,
\nand one of those conditions is the issue of notice under  s.
\n22(1) or s.    22(2).\tBut it must be noted that s.  18A(9)\n<\/p>\n
(b) does
\n401<\/span>
\nnot  merely  say that an estimate under S. 18A(3)  shall  be
\ndeemed\tto be a return.\t It enacts that the failure to\tsend
\nan estimate in accordance with s. 18A(3) is to be deemed  to
\nbe a failure to make a return.\tNow, there can be no failure
\nto  make  a return, unless notice had been issued  under  s.
\n22(1) or s. 22(2) and there has been a default in  complying
\nwith  that notice.  Therefore, the fiction that the  failure
\nto send an estimate is to be deemed to be a failure to\tsend
\na  return necessarily involves the fiction that\t notice\t had
\nbeen  issued  under s. 22, and that had\t not  been  complied
\nwith.\tIt is a rule of interpretation well settled that  in
\nconstruing  the scope of a legal fiction it would be  proper
\nand even necessary to assume all those facts on which  alone
\nthe   fiction\tcan  operate.\tThe   following\t  off-quoted
\nobservations of Lord Asquith in East End Dwellings Co.\tLtd.
\nv.  Finsbury  Borough  Council\t(1)  may  appropriately\t  be
\nreferred to:\n<\/p>\n
”  If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of  affairs
\nas  real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing\t so,
\nalso  imagine as real the consequences and incidents  which,
\nif  the putative state of affairs had in fact existed,\tmust
\ninevitably have flowed from or accompanied it.\tOne of these
\nin  this case is emancipation from the 1939 level of  rents.
\nThe  statute says that you must imagine a certain  state  of
\naffairs; it does not say that having done so, you must cause
\nor  permit your imagination to boggle when it comes  to\t the
\ninevitable corollaries of that state of affairs.”
\nThe  fiction under s. 18A(9) (b) therefore that\t failure  to
\nsend  an  estimate under s. 18A(3) is to be deemed to  be  a
\nfailure\t to send a return must mean that all those facts  on
\nwhich alone there could be a failure to send the return must
\nbe deemed to exist, and it must accordingly be taken that by
\nreason\tof  this fiction, the notices required to  be  given
\nunder  s. 22 must be deemed to have been given, and in\tthat
\nview, s. 28 would apply on its own terms.\n<\/p>\n
Some  argument was addressed to us based on the use  of\t the
\ndefinite article “the” qualifying the word
\n(1)  [1952] A.C. 109, 132.\n<\/p>\n
51<\/span>
\n402<\/span><\/p>\n
“return” in s. 18-A(9)(b).  It was said that that expression
\nmeant the – return which is to be furnished under of s.\t 22,
\nand  that that requires that there must have been  a  notice
\nissued\tunder s. 22(1) or s. 22(2), before action  could  be
\ntaken  under  s. 28.  In the view expressed above  that\t the
\nfiction\t enacted in s. 18-A(9)(b) involves the fiction\tthat
\nnotices\t had  been issued under s. 22(1) or s.\t22(2),\tthis
\ncontention does not call for further consideration.
\nIt  was finally argued that a fiscal statute and  especially
\none  imposing  a penalty, should be strictly  construed\t and
\nthat  if  the  words of the enactment  be  not\tsufficiently
\nexplicit  to reach the subject, the Revenue must  fail,\t and
\nthe  following observations in Vestey’s (Lord) Executors  v.
\nInland\tRevenue Commissioners (1) were relied on in  support
\nof this position :\n<\/p>\n
“Parliament in its attempts to keep pace with the  ingenuity
\ndevoted\t to  tax avoidance may fall short  of  its  purpose.
\nThat  is a -misfortune for the taxpayers who do not  try  to
\navoid  their share of the burden and it is disappointing  to
\nthe  Inland  Revenue.  But the court. will not\tstretch\t the
\nterms of taxing Acts in order to: improve on the efforts  of
\nParliament  and\t to  stop gaps which are left  open  by\t the
\nstatutes.   Tax\t avoidance is an evil, but it would  be\t the
\nbeginning  of  much  greater evils if  the  courts  were  to
\noverstretch the language of the statute in order to  subject
\nto taxation people of whom they disapproved.”
\nThese observations would be in, point if the language of the
\nenactment  left us in any doubt as to what  the\t legislature
\nmeant.\t But can that be said of s. 18-A(9)(b)?\t Its  object
\navowedly  is to assimilate the position of a person who\t has
\nfailed\tto send the estimate under s. 18-A 3) to that  of  a
\nperson\twho has failed to furnish the return.. under s.\t 22,
\nand  that object is sought to. be achieved by  enacting\t the
\nfiction\t which is contained in s. 18-A(9)(b).  And  ‘if,  on
\nthe  principles laid down in East End Dwellings Co. Ltd.  v.
\nFinsbury  Boorough  Council  (2), the true  effect  of\tthat
\nfiction is that it imports that notice had been issued under
\ns.  22, then the conditions prescribed in s. 28 of  the\t Act
\nare satisfied and
\n(1) [1949] 1 All E.R. 1108, 1120.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1952] A.C. 109, 132.\n<\/p>\n
403<\/span><\/p>\n
penalty\t could be imposed under that section for failure  to
\ncomply\twith  s.  18-A(3), on the  clear  language  of\tthat
\nenactment itself without straining or overstretching it.
\nWe  must  now  refer to an aspect  of  the  question,  which
\nstrongly  reinforces  the conclusion stated above.   On\t the
\nconstruction contended for by the respondent, s.  18-A(9)(b)
\nwould  become  wholly nugatory, as ss. 22(1) and  22(2)\t can
\nhave  no  application to advance estimates to  be  furnished
\nunder  s. 18-A(3), and if we accede to this  contention,  we
\nmust hold that though the legislature enacted s.  18-A(9)(b)
\nwith  the  very\t object\t of bringing  the  failure  to\tsend
\nestimates under s. 18-A(3) within the operation of s. 28, it
\nsignally failed to achieve its object.\tA construction which
\nleads  to  such\t a  result must, if  that  is  possible,  be
\navoided,,  on the principle expressed in the maxim, “ut\t res
\nmagis valeat quam pereat”.  Vide Curtis v. Stovin (1) and in
\nparticular the following observations of Fry, L. J., at page
\n519 :\n<\/p>\n
I  “The\t only alternative construction offered to  us  would
\nlead  to  this\tresult,\t that the  plain  intention  of\t the
\nlegislature  has  entirely  failed by  reason  of  a  slight
\ninexactitude in the language of the section.  If we were  to
\nadopt this construction, we should be construing the Act  in
\norder to defeat its object rather than with a view to  carry
\nits object into effect”.\n<\/p>\n
Vide  also Craies on Statute Law, p. 90 and Maxwell  on\t The
\nInterpretation\tof  Statutes, Tenth Edn., pp.  236-237.\t  “A
\nstatute\t is designed”, observed Lord Dunedin in\t Whitney  v.
\nCommissioners  of Inland Revenue (2), “to be  workable,\t and
\nthe  interpretation thereof by a court should be  to  secure
\nthat  object,  unless crucial omission\tor  clear  direction
\nmakes that end unattainable”.\n<\/p>\n
We  are accordingly of opinion that it was competent to\t the
\nIncome-tax authorities to impose a penalty under s. 28\tread
\nwith s. 18-A(9)(b) where there has been a failure to  comply
\nwith s. 18-A(3).\n<\/p>\n
in  the result., we set aside the order of the\tcourt  below
\nand answer the reference in the affirmative.
\n(1) [1889] 22 Q.B.D. 513.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1925] 10 Tax Cas. 88, 110.\n<\/p>\n
404<\/span><\/p>\n
The    appellant will have his costs here and in the court
\nIf  below.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t Appeal allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs S.Teja Singh on 5 November, 1958 Equivalent citations: 1959 AIR 352, 1959 SCR Supl. (1) 394 Author: T V Aiyyar Bench: Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI Vs. RESPONDENT: S.TEJA SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/11\/1958 BENCH: AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA BENCH: AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA GAJENDRAGADKAR, […]<\/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-149038","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs S.Teja Singh on 5 November, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-teja-singh-on-5-november-1958\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs S.Teja Singh on 5 November, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-teja-singh-on-5-november-1958\" \/>\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=\"1958-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-29T15:33:14+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-teja-singh-on-5-november-1958#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-teja-singh-on-5-november-1958\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs S.Teja Singh on 5 November, 1958\",\"datePublished\":\"1958-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-29T15:33:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-teja-singh-on-5-november-1958\"},\"wordCount\":3208,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-teja-singh-on-5-november-1958#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-teja-singh-on-5-november-1958\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-teja-singh-on-5-november-1958\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs S.Teja Singh on 5 November, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1958-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-29T15:33:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-teja-singh-on-5-november-1958#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-teja-singh-on-5-november-1958\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-teja-singh-on-5-november-1958#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs S.Teja Singh on 5 November, 1958\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs S.Teja Singh on 5 November, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-teja-singh-on-5-november-1958","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs S.Teja Singh on 5 November, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-teja-singh-on-5-november-1958","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1958-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-29T15:33:14+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-teja-singh-on-5-november-1958#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-teja-singh-on-5-november-1958"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs S.Teja Singh on 5 November, 1958","datePublished":"1958-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-29T15:33:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-teja-singh-on-5-november-1958"},"wordCount":3208,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-teja-singh-on-5-november-1958#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-teja-singh-on-5-november-1958","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-teja-singh-on-5-november-1958","name":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs S.Teja Singh on 5 November, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1958-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-29T15:33:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-teja-singh-on-5-november-1958#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-teja-singh-on-5-november-1958"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-s-teja-singh-on-5-november-1958#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs S.Teja Singh on 5 November, 1958"}]},{"@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\/149038","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=149038"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149038\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149038"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149038"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149038"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}