{"id":151465,"date":"2010-06-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010"},"modified":"2015-11-19T02:44:08","modified_gmt":"2015-11-18T21:14:08","slug":"commissioner-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 22 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner vs Unknown on 22 June, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: D.A.Mehta,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/558\/2009\t 1\/ 11\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 558 of 2009\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\nOF INCOME TAX-I - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSARVODAY\nKELVANI SAMAJ - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\nAppearance : \nMRS\nMAUNA M BHATT for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNone for Opponent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 22\/06\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)<\/p>\n<p>1.<br \/>\n Appellant Revenue has preferred this Appeal under section 260A of<br \/>\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) proposing following three<br \/>\nquestions as substantial questions of law :\n<\/p>\n<p> [A]\tWhether on the facts<br \/>\nand in law, the Appellate Tribunal is right in deleting the addition<br \/>\nof Rs.53,00,000\/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the<br \/>\nCIT(A), on account of Development Fund created, instead of utilizing<br \/>\nit for the objects of the trust, ignoring the fact that the assessee<br \/>\nfailed to fulfill the specific requirements of law of spending 85% of<br \/>\nreceipts for claiming exemption u\/s.11 of the Act?\n<\/p>\n<p>[B]\tWhether the Appellate<br \/>\nTribunal has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the<br \/>\namount of Rs.53 lacs out of total receipts\/income of the year was<br \/>\ntransferred by book entry alone from the Income and Expenditure<br \/>\naccount of one of units to the Balance Sheet of the main trust as<br \/>\nDevelopment Fund without utilizing it for the purpose of the trust,<br \/>\nnor as specified in the assessment order having filed form No. 10 as<br \/>\nrequired u\/s. 11(2) for accumulating the amount in question and<br \/>\ntherefore was not entitled  to exemption u\/s. 11 of the IT Act, 1961<br \/>\n?\n<\/p>\n<p>[C]\tWhether the Appellate<br \/>\nTribunal is right in law and on facts in its interpretation that the<br \/>\namount of Rs. 53,00,000\/- is &#8216;neither claimed nor allowed as<br \/>\ndeduction from income by way of application of funds, it cannot be<br \/>\ntreated as receipt of fresh donation during the year or income of the<br \/>\ntrust&#8217; &amp; it is &#8216;nothing more than a transfer entry in books of<br \/>\none unit of the assessee to the main trust account&#8217; and therefore the<br \/>\nsame cannot be treated as income of the assessee trust, whereas the<br \/>\nsaid amount was actually collected by Atmiya Institute run by the<br \/>\nassessee trust  and which has been declared as applied for the<br \/>\npurpose of trust development expense in the Income &amp; Expenditure<br \/>\nA\/c. for year ended 31\/03\/2003 but actually the said amount of<br \/>\nRs.53,00,000\/- was not utilized but used to merely create Development<br \/>\nfund in the Balance Sheet of the assessee and therefore the trust was<br \/>\nnot entitled for exemption u\/s. 11 as the fund was not utilized for<br \/>\nthe purpose of the trust nor filed form No.10 as required u\/s.11(2)<br \/>\nfor accumulating the amount &amp; thus whether the order of the<br \/>\nAppellate Tribunal is perverse ?\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe<br \/>\nAssessment Year in question is  2003-2004, the relevant previous year<br \/>\nbeing Financial Year  2002-2003. In the assessment framed under<br \/>\nsection 143(3) of the Act on 31.3.2006 the Assessing Officer made<br \/>\naddition of Rs.53 lacs, which was a development fund created by the<br \/>\nassessee, for the reasons recorded in paragraph No.5 of the<br \/>\nAssessment Order. The addition was confirmed by Commissioner<br \/>\n(Appeals), and the assessee carried the matter before Income Tax<br \/>\nAppellate Tribunal who vide impugned order dated 30.06.2008 has<br \/>\ndeleted the addition.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tIt<br \/>\nwas submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Tribunal has failed<br \/>\nto consider and correctly appreciate the facts recorded by the<br \/>\nAssessing Officer. That Rs.53 lacs shown to be the development fund<br \/>\ncreated by the assessee had to be considered as part and parcel of<br \/>\nRs. 6,59,55,320\/-. It was therefore submitted that the order made by<br \/>\nthe Tribunal was bad in law and gives rise to the question(s) as<br \/>\nproposed.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tIn<br \/>\nthe first instance, it is a mistake on the part of the Appellant to<br \/>\nstate that  Rs.53 lacs forms part of the amount of Rs.6,59,55,320\/-,<br \/>\nbecause as recorded in paragraph No. 5.1 of the Assessment Order,<br \/>\nthat is the amount which has been shown to be application of<br \/>\nincome\/fund by the assessee. It is also not possible to state that<br \/>\nthe amount of Rs. 53 lacs is part of the total receipts of<br \/>\nRs.6,67,99,070\/- for the reasons recorded by the Tribunal in its<br \/>\nimpugned order.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tAs<br \/>\ncan be seen from the order of the Tribunal in paragraph No.8 the<br \/>\nTribunal has recorded the submission made on behalf of the assessee<br \/>\nthat the sum of Rs. 53 lacs shown in the balance sheet as a fund was<br \/>\nnot a fresh inflow of funds this year but it was merely a transfer<br \/>\nentry from income and expenditure account of one of the units of the<br \/>\ntrust, namely  Atmiya Institute of Technology  and Science by<br \/>\nway of transfer of other income of the said institute to the<br \/>\ndevelopment fund. The Tribunal has thereafter recorded the following<br \/>\nfindings :\n<\/p>\n<p> We<br \/>\nhave heard both the parties, perused the orders of the authorities<br \/>\nbelow and also gone through the material placed before us. We find<br \/>\nthat the audited accounts of the trust and its constituent units<br \/>\nwhich were available to both the lower authorities, and in particular<br \/>\nthe accounts of the Atmiya institute, we find that the total of the<br \/>\ndebit side of the I &amp; E account shows Rs.2,58,26,738\/- including<br \/>\ntrust development amount of Rs.53,00,000\/-. As against this, the<br \/>\namount claimed  as deduction from income by way of application to<br \/>\nobjects of the trust\/the unit as per the statement of income attached<br \/>\nwith the return of income shows that the amount claimed is only Rs.<br \/>\n2,05,26,738\/- for Atmiya institute. Thus, it becomes apparent that<br \/>\nthe impugned amount of Rs.53,00,000\/- was reduced first from the<br \/>\ntotal expenses of Rs.2,58,26,738\/- and only the net amount  of<br \/>\nRs.2,05,26,738\/- has been claimed as application of income. It is not<br \/>\nin dispute that the said statements, schedules and audited accounts<br \/>\nforming part of the return of income are otherwise accepted by the<br \/>\nA.O. Hence, we find force in the submission of the A.R. that when the<br \/>\nimpugned amount of Rs.53,00,000\/- is neither claimed nor allowed as a<br \/>\ndeduction from income by way of application of funds, it cannot be<br \/>\ntreated as receipt of fresh donation during the year or income of the<br \/>\ntrust. We also find from accounting statements that the impugned<br \/>\namount is nothing more than a transfer entry in books of one unit of<br \/>\nthe appellant to the main trust accounts. As a result, we hold that<br \/>\nthe same cannot be treated as income of the appellant trust and the<br \/>\nquestion of following the procedure of accumulation of income does<br \/>\nnot arise. As far as Sec. 11(5) is concerned it is nowhere pointed<br \/>\nout by either the A.O. or the C.I.T. (Appeals) that the appellant<br \/>\ntrust failed to invest it funds as required by law. On the contrary,<br \/>\nthe A.R. showed from the accounts that all funds of the trust were<br \/>\nduly invested with banks. It is further seen that the return of<br \/>\nincome shows both brought forward and carried forward deficit and<br \/>\nhence even if the amounts treated as income by the A.O. are added<br \/>\nthereto, the net result continues to be deficit which is more than<br \/>\nthe addition made by the A.O. Therefore, we find merits in the<br \/>\ncontention of the learned AR and we set aside the order of the<br \/>\nCIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made<br \/>\nby him on this issue .\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tIt<br \/>\nis apparent that the Tribunal has merely appreciated the evidence on<br \/>\nrecord. While doing so, the Tribunal has taken cognizance of the fact<br \/>\nthat the statements, schedules and the audited accounts  forming<br \/>\npart of the return of income are otherwise accepted by the Assessing<br \/>\nOfficer. That the amount of Rs. 53 lacs has neither been claimed nor<br \/>\nallowed as deduction from income by way of application of funds,  it<br \/>\nis not a receipt of fresh donation during the year nor income of the<br \/>\ntrust. The Tribunal has also accepted<br \/>\nthat the amount in question is nothing else but a transfer entry from<br \/>\none unit to the other in the books of account.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.1.\t The<br \/>\nTribunal has also referred to provisions of section 11(5) of the Act,<br \/>\nto hold that neither the Assessing Officer nor Commissioner (Appeals)<br \/>\nhave pointed out as to how the assessee trust has failed to invest<br \/>\nfunds as required by law. To the contrary, the Tribunal has taken<br \/>\nnote of the fact that all the funds of the trust have been duly<br \/>\ninvested with the banks.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.2.\tLastly,<br \/>\nthe Tribunal has even accepted the alternative submission of the<br \/>\nassessee that considering the brought forward and carried forward<br \/>\ndeficit even if the amount in question is added as income the net<br \/>\nresult continues to be a deficit and hence there is no tax liability.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tTaking<br \/>\ninto account the aforesaid findings recorded by the Tribunal, it is<br \/>\nnot possible to state that<br \/>\nthe said findings are in any manner one which a reasonable person<br \/>\ncould not have arrived at. No evidence has been placed before the<br \/>\nHigh Court to show which relevant piece of evidence has been ignored<br \/>\nor irrelevant evidence has been considered by the Tribunal. The<br \/>\nsubmission on behalf of the appellant that what has been stated by<br \/>\nthe Assessing Officer has not been correctly appreciated by  the<br \/>\nTribunal cannot make the order of the Tribunal perverse, even if what<br \/>\nis submitted is accepted as correct. On facts even the said statement<br \/>\nis not correct as noticed hereinbefore. Even otherwise, in law an<br \/>\norder of  the Appellate Forum can at best be termed to be an<br \/>\nerroneous order but cannot be termed to be perverse when compared<br \/>\nwith the order made by an inferior forum, as otherwise the same would<br \/>\nrender the right of Appeal statutorily granted redundant. The order<br \/>\nof the Assessing Officer has no independent existence and stands<br \/>\nmerged with the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and primarily the<br \/>\nTribunal is only required to consider whether the order made by<br \/>\nCommissioner (Appeals) is correct or not.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tIn the<br \/>\ncircumstances, on none of the grounds pleaded or urged at the time of<br \/>\nhearing  can it be stated that the impugned order of the Tribunal<br \/>\nsuffers from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference. None<br \/>\nof the questions as proposed, or otherwise can be stated to arise out<br \/>\nof the impugned order of the Tribunal on the ground of perversity.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tThe<br \/>\nAppeal is accordingly dismissed in absence of any substantial<br \/>\nquestion of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>               Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>                   Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>           (D.A.\n<\/p>\n<pre>Mehta, J.)       (H.N. Devani, J.)\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n  M.M.BHATT\n\n    \n\n \n\t   \n      \n      \n\t    \n\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n\t   \n      \n\t  \t    \n\t\t   Top\n\t   \n      \n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Commissioner vs Unknown on 22 June, 2010 Author: D.A.Mehta,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/558\/2009 1\/ 11 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 558 of 2009 ========================================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I &#8211; Appellant(s) Versus SARVODAY KELVANI SAMAJ &#8211; Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-151465","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Commissioner vs Unknown on 22 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs Unknown on 22 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-18T21:14:08+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=\"9 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-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs Unknown on 22 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-18T21:14:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1717,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Unknown on 22 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-18T21:14:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Unknown on 22 June, 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":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 22 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 22 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-18T21:14:08+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 22 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-18T21:14:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010"},"wordCount":1717,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010","name":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 22 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-18T21:14:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 22 June, 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\/151465","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=151465"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151465\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151465"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151465"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151465"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}