{"id":152091,"date":"1960-12-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1960-12-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-income-tax-officer-alwaye-vs-the-asok-textiles-ltd-alwaye-on-13-december-1960"},"modified":"2018-06-29T05:09:49","modified_gmt":"2018-06-28T23:39:49","slug":"the-income-tax-officer-alwaye-vs-the-asok-textiles-ltd-alwaye-on-13-december-1960","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-income-tax-officer-alwaye-vs-the-asok-textiles-ltd-alwaye-on-13-december-1960","title":{"rendered":"The Income-Tax Officer, Alwaye vs The Asok Textiles Ltd., Alwaye on 13 December, 1960"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Income-Tax Officer, Alwaye vs The Asok Textiles Ltd., Alwaye on 13 December, 1960<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 699, \t\t 1961 SCR (3) 236<\/div>\n
Author: K L.<\/div>\n
Bench: Kapur, J.L.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, ALWAYE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE ASOK TEXTILES LTD., ALWAYE\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n13\/12\/1960\n\nBENCH:\nKAPUR, J.L.\nBENCH:\nKAPUR, J.L.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR  699\t\t  1961 SCR  (3) 236\n CITATOR INFO :\n E&D\t    1987 SC 575\t (5)\n\n\nACT:\nIncome-tax--Rectification, scope of--If can be equated\twith\nreview under the Code--Advance Payment of tax-Penal interest\ndue to additional tax on rectification, if could be imposed-\nCode  of  Civil Procedure (V of 1908), O.  47,\tr.  1-Indian\nIncome-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), ss. 18A (8), 35.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nAfter  the respondents net assessable income for  the  years\n,952-53\t  was  determined,  it\tdeclared   dividends   which\nattracted  provisions of the Finance Act, 1952,\t and  became\nliable to the\n237\npayment of additional income-tax, which fact was  overlooked\nby the Income-tax Officer, who, after giving notice under s.\n35 of the Income-tax Act, rectified the error and imposed an\nadditional  tax\t at the rate of one anna in the\t rupee.\t  He\nlater  discovered that this was also erroneous and the\trate\nshould\thave  been five anmas in a rupee and  rectified\t the\nerror;\tby  the\t same order the\t omission  to  impose  penal\ninterest  under s. 18A(8) was rectified and  penal  interest\nwas  imposed.  The respondent's case before the\t High  Court\nwas  that  s. 35.of the Act did not apply and  that  on\t the\nmerits\tthe additional tax could not be imposed.   The\tHigh\nCourt held that the necessary foundation for the exercise of\nthe  powers under S. 35 bad not been laid and therefore\t the\nIncome-tax  Officer had no jurisdiction to make\t the  order;\nand also that the penal interest under s. 18A(8) of the\t Act\nfor  failure  to  make\tadvance\t deposit  was  also  without\njurisdiction.\nHeld,  that  the language and scope of S. 35 of\t the  Indian\nIncome-tax  Act, 1922, could not be equated with that of  O.\n47,  r.\t 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.   The  Income-tax\nOfficer could under S. 35 of the Act examine the record\t and\nif he discovered that a mistake had been made, could rectify\nthe  error both of law and fact.  The restrictive  operation\nof the powers of review under 0. 47, r. of the Code of Civil\nProcedure  was\tnot applicable in the case of s. 35  of\t the\nIncome-tax Act.\nHeld,  further, that the s. 18A(8) was a mandatory  one\t and\nthe  Income-tax\t Officer  was  required\t to  calculate\t the\ninterest in the manner provided under the provisions of that\nsub-section and had to add it to the assessment.\nMaharana  Mills (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer,<\/a>  [1959]  36\nI.T.R. 350 and M. K. Venkatachalam v. Bombay Dyeing &  Manu-\nfacturing Co. Ltd., [1958] 34 I.T.R. 143, discussed.\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Elphinstone Spinning & Weaving\nMills Co. Ltd.<\/a> [1960] 40 I.T.R. 142, Commissioner of Income-\ntax, Bombay City v. Jalgaon Electric Supply Co. Ltd.,<\/a> [1960]\n40 I.T.R. 184 and Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City v.\nKhatau Makanji Spng. & Weavg<\/a> to.  Ltd., [1960] 40 I.T.R. 189\nnot applicable.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 311 of 1959.
\nAppeal\tfrom the judgment and order dated October 31,  1955,
\nof the Travancore Cochin High Court, Ernakulam, in  Original
\nPetition No. 75 of 1955.\n<\/p>\n
A. N. Kripal and D. Gupta, for the appellant.
\nSardar Bahadur, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
1960.  December 13.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby
\n238<\/span>
\nKAPUR, J.-This is an appeal pursuant to a certificate of the
\nHigh Court of Kerala against the judgment and order of\tthat
\ncourt and the question for decision is the applicability  of
\ns.  35 of the Indian\tIncome-tax Act\t(hereinafter  termed
\nthe ‘Act’).\n<\/p>\n
The facts which have given rise to the appeal are these: The
\nrespondent is a limited company which owns a spinning  mills
\nat Alwaye.  It commenced business in January, 1951, and\t its
\nfirst  accounting year ended on December 31, 1951,  and\t the
\nrelevant  assessment year is 1952-53.  It filed\t its  return
\nshowing\t an income Rs. 3,21,284 without taking into  account
\nthe  amount allowable under s. 15C of the Act.\tOn  February
\n2,  1953,  the net assessable income of the  respondent\t was
\ndetermined  at\tRs. 1,47,083 after  deducting  Rs.  1,79,081
\nunder s. 15C.  The respondent however declared a dividend of
\nRs. 4,72,415 which attracted the application of s. 2 of\t the
\nFinance\t Act, 1952, read with Part B, proviso (ii) of  First
\nSchedule  and  thus  it\t became liable\tto  the\t payment  of
\nadditional  income tax and this fact was overlooked  by\t the
\nIncome-tax Officer.  After giving notice under s. 35 of\t the
\nAct,  the Income-tax Officer by an order dated\tJanuary\t 25,
\n1954, rectified this error and imposed an additional tax  at
\nthe rate of one anna in the rupee.  He later discovered that
\nthis  was  also erroneous and the rate should  have  been  5
\nannas  in  a rupee.  By an order dated August 12,  1954,  he
\nrectified  the error.  Under s. 18A, advance income tax\t had
\nto be paid and the respondent company had deposited only Rs.
\n5,000 and therefore became liable to penal interest under s.
\n18A(8)\tof  the\t Act.  By the same order  this\tomission  to
\nimpose penal interest was’ corrected and this error was thus
\nrectified.\n<\/p>\n
Against\t this order the respondent company went in  revision
\nunder  s. 33A(2) to the Commissioner of Income-tax  but\t the
\nrevision  was dismissed.  Thereupon the\t respondent  company
\nfiled a petition in the High Court of Kerala under Art.\t 226
\nof the Constitution on the ground that s. 35 of the Act\t did
\nnot apply and that on the merits additional tax could not be
\nimposed. The High Court by its judgment dated October 31,
\n239<\/span>
\n1955 held that the orders made were without jurisdiction and
\ntherefore  granted a writ of certiorari quashing the  orders
\nand the Income-tax Officer has brought this appeal  pursuant
\nto a certificate of that High Court.\n<\/p>\n
According  to  the  High  Court, s. 35\tof  the\t Act  was  a
\nprovision  for\trectification of “mistakes apparent  on\t the
\nrecord”\t and  in  the opinion of the High  Court  it  was  a
\nmistake\t analogous  to\tO. 47, r. 1 of\tthe  Code  of  Civil
\nProcedure  for grant of review on the ground of\t mistake  or
\nerror apparent on the face of the record and it construed it
\nin the following words:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “i.e. an evident error which does not  require
\n\t      any    extraneous\t  matter   to\t show\t its
\n\t      incorrectness.   The error may be one of\tfact
\n\t      but  is  not limited to matters  of  fact\t and
\n\t      include also errors of law.  But the law\tmust
\n\t      be  definite and capable of ascertainment.  An
\n\t      erroneous view of law on a debatable point  or
\n\t      a\t wrong\texposition  of the law\tor  a  wrong
\n\t      application  of the law or a failure to  apply
\n\t      the  appropriate\tlaw cannot be  considered  a
\n\t      mistake  or error apparent on the face of\t the
\n\t      record.\tSee Chitaley’s C.P.C. Col.  III\t pp.
\n\t      3549-50, 5th edition.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On the ground that the applicability of proviso (ii) of Part
\nB  of  the First Schedule of the Finance Act was  a  complex
\nquestion which could not be said to be “apparent on the face
\nof  the\t record”,  the High Court held\tthat  the  necessary
\nfoundation  for the exercise of the powers under s.  35\t had
\nnot  been laid and therefore the Income-tax Officer  had  no
\njurisdiction to make the order that he did.  The High  Court
\nalso held that the levy of penal interest under s. 18A(8) of
\nthe Act for failure to make advance deposit under s.  18A(3)
\nwas also without jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
The  learned  Judges of the High Court seem to\thave  fallen
\ninto an error in equating the language and scope of s. 35 of
\nthe Act with that of O. 47, r. 1, Civil Procedure Code.\t The
\nlanguage of the two is different because according to s.  35
\nof the Act which provides for rectification of mistakes\t the
\npower is given to the various income-tax authorities  within
\nfour years from the date of any assessment passed by them to
\nrectify
\n240<\/span>
\nany  mistake  “apparent from the record” and  in  the  Civil
\nProcedure Code the words are “an error apparent on the\tface
\nof  the record” and the two provisions do not mean the\tsame
\nthing.\t This  court in Maharana  Mills\t (Private)  Ltd.  v.
\nIncome-tax Officer, Porbandar<\/a> (1) has laid down the scope of
\ns. 35 at p. 358 in the following words:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  power  under  section  35  is  no  doubt
\n\t      limited to rectification of mistakes which are
\n\t      apparent\t from\tthe   record.\t A   mistake
\n\t      contemplated by this section is not one  which
\n\t      is to be discovered as a result of an argument
\n\t      but  it is open to the Income-tax\t Officer  to
\n\t      examine the record including the evidence\t and
\n\t      if he discovers any mistake he is entitled  to
\n\t      rectify the error provided that if the  result
\n\t      is  enhancement of assessment or reducing\t the
\n\t      refund  then notice has to be  given  to\tthe
\n\t      assessee and he should be allowed a reasonable
\n\t      opportunity of being heard.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  that case the error arose because of an initial  mistake
\nin determining the written down value which was subsequently
\nrectified.  In an earlier case M. K. Venkatachalam v. Bombay
\nDyeing & Manufacturing Co.  Ltd. (2) where as a\t consequence
\nof  a subsequent amendment of the law  having  retrospective
\neffect,\t the  Income-tax  Officer  reduced  the\t amount\t  of
\ninterest  under\t s.  18A(5)  of the  Act  and  the  assessee
\nobtained  from the High Court a writ of prohibition  against
\nthe  Income-tax\t Officer  on the  ground  that\tthe  mistake
\ncontemplated had to be apparent on the face of the order and
\nnot  a mistake resulting from an amendment of the  law\teven
\nthough it was retrospective in its effect, it was held\tthat
\nit   was  a  case  of  error  apparent\tfrom   the   record.
\nGajendragadkar, J. in his judgment said:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “At  the\ttime  when  the\t Income-tax  Officer
\n\t      applied his mind to the question of rectifying
\n\t      the  alleged  mistake, there can be  no  doubt
\n\t      that  he\thad  to read the  principal  Act  as
\n\t      containing the inserted proviso as from  April
\n\t      1, 1952.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Thus this court has held that discovery of an error on
\n(1) [1959] 36 I.T.R. 350.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1958] 34 I.T.R. 143.\n<\/p>\n
241<\/span><\/p>\n
the  basis  of\tassessment  due to  an\tinitial\t mistake  in
\ndetermining  the  written down value is a mistake  from\t the
\nrecord and so is a misapplication of the law even though the
\nlaw  came  into operation retrospectively.   The  Income-tax
\nOfficer, can, under s. 35 of the Act, examine the record and
\nif  he discovers that he has made a mistake he\tcan  rectify
\nthe  error  and the error which can be corrected may  be  an
\nerror  of fact or of law.  The restrictive operation of\t the
\npower  of review under 0. 47 R. 1, Civil Procedure  Code  is
\nnot  applicable in the case of s. 35 of the Act and  in\t our
\nopinion\t it cannot be said that the order of the  Income-tax
\nOfficer\t in  regard  to assessment in  dispute\twas  without
\njurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
In  regard  to\ts.  18A (8) also  the  learned\tJudges\thave
\nmisdirected  themselves because that section  is  mandatory.
\nIt provides:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      S.    18A(8)  “Where,  on making\tthe  regular
\n\t      assessment, the Income-tax Officer finds\tthat
\n\t      no payment of tax has been made in  accordance
\n\t      with the foregoing provisions of this section,
\n\t      interest calculated in the manner laid down in
\n\t      sub-section  (6) shall be added to the tax  as
\n\t      determined   on  the  basis  of  the   regular
\n\t      assessment.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Therefore  the Income-tax Officer was required to  calculate
\nthe interest in the manner provided under the provisions  of
\nthat sub-section and had to add it to the assessment.
\nCounsel\t for the respondent sought to raise the question  as
\nto  the\t applicability of proviso (ii) of Part\tB  of  First
\nSchedule  of  the  Finance  Act 1952  and  relied  upon\t the
\njudgments  of  this Court in Commissioner of  Income-tax  v.
\nElphinstone  Spinning  &  Weaving Mills Co.   Ltd.<\/a>  (1)\t and
\nsimilar cases reported as Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
\nCity   v.   Jalgaon  Electric  Supply\tCo.    Ltd.<\/a>(1)\t and
\nCommissioner  of Income-tax, Bombay City v.  Khatau  Makanji
\nSpinning  and Weaving Co. Ltd.<\/a> (3); but the facts  of  those
\ncases were different.  In the first case there was no  total
\nincome and the
\n(1) [1960] 40 I.T.R. 142.      (2) [1960] 40 I.T.R. 184.
\n(3) [1960] 40 I.T.A. 189.\n<\/p>\n
31<\/span>
\n242<\/span><\/p>\n
Finance Act was not applicable in that case.  In the  second
\nthere was no profit in any preceding year and therefore\t the
\nfiction\t failed because it postulates that there  should  be
\nundistributed  profits\tof  one or  more  years\t immediately
\npreceding  the\tprevious year.\tIn the third case  also\t the
\nFinance Act was inapplicable because the additional tax\t was
\nnot  properly  laid  upon  the total  income  and  what\t was
\nactually  taxed was never a part of the total income of\t the
\nprevious year.\n<\/p>\n
In  our opinion the order of the High Court  was  erroneous.
\nWe  therefore allow this appeal and set aside  the  judgment
\nand order of the High Court with costs in this court and  in
\nthe High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t   Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t __________________<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Income-Tax Officer, Alwaye vs The Asok Textiles Ltd., Alwaye on 13 December, 1960 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 699, 1961 SCR (3) 236 Author: K L. Bench: Kapur, J.L. PETITIONER: THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, ALWAYE Vs. RESPONDENT: THE ASOK TEXTILES LTD., ALWAYE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/12\/1960 BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. […]<\/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-152091","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Income-Tax Officer, Alwaye vs The Asok Textiles Ltd., Alwaye on 13 December, 1960 - 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\/the-income-tax-officer-alwaye-vs-the-asok-textiles-ltd-alwaye-on-13-december-1960\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Income-Tax Officer, Alwaye vs The Asok Textiles Ltd., Alwaye on 13 December, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-income-tax-officer-alwaye-vs-the-asok-textiles-ltd-alwaye-on-13-december-1960\" \/>\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=\"1960-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-28T23:39:49+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\\\/the-income-tax-officer-alwaye-vs-the-asok-textiles-ltd-alwaye-on-13-december-1960#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-income-tax-officer-alwaye-vs-the-asok-textiles-ltd-alwaye-on-13-december-1960\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Income-Tax Officer, Alwaye vs The Asok Textiles Ltd., Alwaye on 13 December, 1960\",\"datePublished\":\"1960-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-28T23:39:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-income-tax-officer-alwaye-vs-the-asok-textiles-ltd-alwaye-on-13-december-1960\"},\"wordCount\":1633,\"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\\\/the-income-tax-officer-alwaye-vs-the-asok-textiles-ltd-alwaye-on-13-december-1960#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-income-tax-officer-alwaye-vs-the-asok-textiles-ltd-alwaye-on-13-december-1960\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-income-tax-officer-alwaye-vs-the-asok-textiles-ltd-alwaye-on-13-december-1960\",\"name\":\"The Income-Tax Officer, Alwaye vs The Asok Textiles Ltd., Alwaye on 13 December, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1960-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-28T23:39:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-income-tax-officer-alwaye-vs-the-asok-textiles-ltd-alwaye-on-13-december-1960#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-income-tax-officer-alwaye-vs-the-asok-textiles-ltd-alwaye-on-13-december-1960\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-income-tax-officer-alwaye-vs-the-asok-textiles-ltd-alwaye-on-13-december-1960#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Income-Tax Officer, Alwaye vs The Asok Textiles Ltd., Alwaye on 13 December, 1960\"}]},{\"@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":"The Income-Tax Officer, Alwaye vs The Asok Textiles Ltd., Alwaye on 13 December, 1960 - 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\/the-income-tax-officer-alwaye-vs-the-asok-textiles-ltd-alwaye-on-13-december-1960","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Income-Tax Officer, Alwaye vs The Asok Textiles Ltd., Alwaye on 13 December, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-income-tax-officer-alwaye-vs-the-asok-textiles-ltd-alwaye-on-13-december-1960","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1960-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-28T23:39:49+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\/the-income-tax-officer-alwaye-vs-the-asok-textiles-ltd-alwaye-on-13-december-1960#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-income-tax-officer-alwaye-vs-the-asok-textiles-ltd-alwaye-on-13-december-1960"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Income-Tax Officer, Alwaye vs The Asok Textiles Ltd., Alwaye on 13 December, 1960","datePublished":"1960-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-28T23:39:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-income-tax-officer-alwaye-vs-the-asok-textiles-ltd-alwaye-on-13-december-1960"},"wordCount":1633,"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\/the-income-tax-officer-alwaye-vs-the-asok-textiles-ltd-alwaye-on-13-december-1960#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-income-tax-officer-alwaye-vs-the-asok-textiles-ltd-alwaye-on-13-december-1960","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-income-tax-officer-alwaye-vs-the-asok-textiles-ltd-alwaye-on-13-december-1960","name":"The Income-Tax Officer, Alwaye vs The Asok Textiles Ltd., Alwaye on 13 December, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1960-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-28T23:39:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-income-tax-officer-alwaye-vs-the-asok-textiles-ltd-alwaye-on-13-december-1960#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-income-tax-officer-alwaye-vs-the-asok-textiles-ltd-alwaye-on-13-december-1960"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-income-tax-officer-alwaye-vs-the-asok-textiles-ltd-alwaye-on-13-december-1960#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Income-Tax Officer, Alwaye vs The Asok Textiles Ltd., Alwaye on 13 December, 1960"}]},{"@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\/152091","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=152091"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152091\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=152091"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=152091"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=152091"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}