{"id":182662,"date":"1993-08-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-08-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virkey-chacko-vs-c-i-t-on-24-august-1993"},"modified":"2018-09-08T00:57:50","modified_gmt":"2018-09-07T19:27:50","slug":"virkey-chacko-vs-c-i-t-on-24-august-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virkey-chacko-vs-c-i-t-on-24-august-1993","title":{"rendered":"Virkey Chacko vs C.I.T on 24 August, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Virkey Chacko vs C.I.T on 24 August, 1993<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC, Supl. (1) 264 JT 1993 (5)\t 58<\/div>\n
Author: B S.P.<\/div>\n
Bench: Bharucha S.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nVIRKEY CHACKO\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nC.I.T.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT24\/08\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nBHARUCHA S.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nBHARUCHA S.P. (J)\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 SCC  Supl.  (1) 264 JT 1993 (5)\t 58\n 1993 SCALE  (3)537\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nBHARUCHA, J.- This is an appeal on a certificate granted  by
\nthe  High  Court of Kerala.  The judgment under\t appeal\t was
\ndelivered on a reference under Section 256(2) of the  Income
\nTax  Act,  1961.   It answered in  the\tnegative,  that\t is,
\nagainst\t the  appellant\t (assessee) and\t in  favour  of\t the
\nRevenue (respondent), the following question:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
\n\t      of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
\n\t      is right in law in holding that the Income Tax
\n\t      Officer  had  no\tjurisdiction  to  levy\t the
\n\t      penalty  and that he should have referred\t the
\n\t      case to the Inspecting Assistant\tCommissioner
\n\t      for imposition of penalty?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2.The reference pertained to the Assessment Year 1968-69,
\nthe  relevant  accounting period having ended on  March\t 31,
\n1968.\n<\/p>\n
3.The assessee filed his return on April 16, 1970.   With
\neffect from April 1, 1971, sub-section (2) of Section 274 of
\nthe  Income Tax Act, 1961, was amended.\t Prior to  the\tsaid
\namendment  where,  in a case falling under clause  (iii)  of
\nsub-section   (1)  of  Section\t271,  the  minimum   penalty
\nimposable  exceeded  the  sum of Rs  1000,  the\t Income\t Tax
\nOfficer\t was  obliged to refer the case\t to  the  Inspecting
\nAssistant Commissioner.\t By reason of the said amendment the
\nIncome\tTax Officer was obliged to refer to  the  Inspecting
\nAssistant  Commissioner such cases falling under clause\t (c)
\nof  sub-section\t (1)  of Section 271  where  the  amount  of
\nincome,\t as determined by the ITO on assessment, in  respect
\nof  which  particulars\thad  been  concealed  or  inaccurate
\nparticulars  had  been\tfurnished exceeded  the\t sum  of  Rs
\n25,000.\t  On  March  27, 1972, the ITO made  the  orders  of
\nassessment  and\t initiated penalty proceedings\tagainst\t the
\nassessee  on  the  basis  of  a\t finding  recorded  in\t the
\nassessment  order that there had been concealment of  income
\nin respect of an amount which did not exceed
\n266<\/span>
\nRs 25,000.  After considering the assessee’s objections, the
\nITO, by order dated March 26, 1974, imposed a penalty of  Rs
\n10,000.\n<\/p>\n
4.The  assessee\t appealed  to  the  Appellate\tAssistant
\nCommissioner, who set aside the penalty order on the  ground
\nthat  the  ITO\tdid not have the jurisdiction  to  levy\t the
\npenalty.   The Revenue carried the matter to the Income\t Tax
\nAppellate  Tribunal, which confirmed the order of  the\tAAC.
\nIt held that the law governing the imposition of penalty for
\nconcealment  of income was the law that was in force on\t the
\ndate  on which the return in which the concealment had\tbeen
\nmade   was  filed  and\tthat  the  said\t amendment  had\t  no
\napplication  to\t the  case  because it\thad  not  been\tmade
\nexpressly retrospective.\n<\/p>\n
5.Arising out of the order of the Tribunal, the\t question
\nquoted above was referred to the High Court.  The High Court
\nnoted  that  the question to be considered was\twhether\t the
\nproceedings for imposition of penalty taken in the case were
\ngoverned  by the provisions of Section 274(2) as they  stood
\nprior  to  the\tsaid amendment or whether it  was  the\tsub-
\nsection as amended that would apply.  It concluded that\t the
\ncompetence or jurisdiction of the authority to initiate\t the
\npenalty proceedings could be governed only by the law  which
\nwas in force on the date of initiation of such\tproceedings.
\nA  combined  reading of Section 271(1)(c)(iii)\tand  Section
\n274(2) provided a clear indication that under the provisions
\nof  Section 274(2) as they stood prior to the  amendment  of
\n1970  the  competence of the ITO to exercise  the  power  of
\nimposition of penalty against an assessee under Section\t 271
\n(1)(c) was to depend upon the findings arrived at by him  in
\nthe  assessment proceedings as to the factum of\t concealment
\nand   the  amount  of  income  in  respect  of\twhich\tsuch
\nconcealment  had  taken place.\tIt was only on\tarriving  at
\nsuch  a finding that the question of initiation\t of  penalty
\nproceedings could arise.  In this connection, the High Court
\nreferred  to the judgment of this Court in Jain Brothers  v.
\nUnion  of India’.  Accordingly, the Tribunal<\/a> was held to  be
\nin  error  and the question referred to the High  Court\t was
\nanswered in the negative, that is, against the assessee\t and
\nin favour of Revenue.\n<\/p>\n
6.Section   27\t1  (1)(c)  confers  upon  the\tassessing
\nauthority  the power to direct an assessee to pay a  penalty
\nwhere  he is satisfied that the assessee has  concealed\t the
\nparticulars  of\t his  income  or  has  furnished  inaccurate
\nparticulars  of his income.  Section 274(2), before  it\t was
\namended\t by  the Taxation Law (Amendment)  Act,\t 1970,\twith
\neffect from April 1, 197 1, read thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Notwithstanding anything contained in  clause\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii) of sub-section (1) of Section 271, if in
\n\t      a\t case falling under clause (c) of that\tsub-
\n\t      section, the minimum penalty imposable exceeds
\n\t      a\t sum of rupees one thousand, the Income\t Tax
\n\t      Officer shall refer the case to the Inspecting
\n\t      Assistant\t Commissioner  who  shall,  for\t the
\n\t      purpose,\thave all the powers conferred  under
\n\t      this Chapter for the imposition of penalty.”
\n\t      After the said amendment, it read thus:
\n\t      “Notwithstanding anything contained in  clause\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii) of sub-section (1) of Section 271, if in
\n\t      a\t case failing under clause (c) of that\tsub-
\n\t      section,\tthe amount of income (as  determined
\n\t      by  the Income Tax Officer on  assessment)  in
\n\t      respect  of  which the particulars  have\tbeen
\n\t      concealed or inaccurate particulars have\tbeen
\n\t      furnished\t  exceeds  a  sum   of\t twenty-five
\n\t      thousand\trupees the Income Tax Officer  shall
\n\t      refer the case to the
\n\t      1\t (1969) 3 SCC 311: (1970) 77 ITR 107
\n\t      267<\/span>
\n\t      Inspecting  Assistant Commissioner who  shall,
\n\t      for the purpose, have all the powers conferred
\n\t      under  this  Chapter  for\t the  imposition  of
\n\t      penalty.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
7.Learned  counsel  for the assessee submitted\tthat  the
\noffence\t of concealment had been committed when\t the  return
\nhad been filed; that, therefore, the unamended provisions of
\nSection\t 274(2)\t applied  and the ITO had  no  authority  to
\nimpose\tthe  penalty.  He relied upon the judgment  of\tthis
\nCourt  in CIT v. Onkar Saran and SonS2.\t Emphasis  was\tlaid
\nupon the statement in the judgment that, after the  decision
\nof this Court in Brij Mohan v. CIT3 there could be no  doubt
\nthat the law applicable to penalty proceedings under Section
\n271(1)(a)  or (c) was the law that was in force on the\tdate
\non which the offending return had been filed.\n<\/p>\n
8.The issue in the cases of Onkar Saran2 and Brij  Mohan3
\nrelated\t to the quantum of penalty that could  be  demanded,
\nand  it\t was  in that context that the\tstatement  that\t was
\nemphasised  was made.  In Brij Mohan case3 it was  expressly
\nstated\tthat  a\t penalty  was  imposed\ton  account  of\t the
\ncommission of a wrongful act and “it is the law operating on
\nthe  date  on  which the wrongful  act\tis  committed  which
\ndetermines the penalty”.\n<\/p>\n
9.Learned  counsel  for the Revenue drew  our  attention,
\nfirst,\tto this Court’s judgment in Jain Brothers’.  It\t was
\nthere  held, inter alia that it was the satisfaction of\t the
\nincome tax authorities that a default had been committed  by
\nthe  assessee  which attracted the  provisions\trelating  to
\npenalty.   Whatever the stage at which the satisfaction\t was
\nreached, the order imposing the penalty had to be made\tonly
\nafter  the completion of the assessment.  The crucial  date,
\ntherefore,  for\t purposes of penalty was the  date  of\tsuch
\ncompletion.   In D.M. Manasvi v. CIT4 this  was\t reiterated.
\nCounsel for the Revenue laid great stress upon the  judgment
\nof  this  Court\t in CIT v. Dhadi Sahu5.\t In  this  case\t the
\nassessee  had failed to disclose certain income\t falling  to
\nthe  share  of his minor children for the  Assessment  Years
\n1968-69\t and 1969-70.  The ITO passed assessment  orders  on
\nFebruary  28, 1970 and initiated penalty  proceedings  under
\nSection\t 271(1)(c).  Since the amounts of the penalty to  be
\nimposed\t would\texceed Rs 1000, the ITO referred  the  cases
\nunder Section 274(2), as it then stood, to the IAC.  Pending
\nthe  penalty  proceedings, Section 274(2) was  amended\twith
\neffect\tfrom April 1, 1971, as a result of which only  cases
\nof  penalty in which the income concealed was Rs  25,000  or
\nmore  were  required  to be referred to\t the  IAC.   In\t the
\nassessee’s case referred to the IAC the income concealed was
\nless  than  Rs 25,000.\tEven so, the IAC  passed  orders  on
\nFebruary 15, 1973, imposing penalty in the sums of Rs 24,000
\nand Rs 12,500 respectively for the Assessment Years  1968-69
\nand  1969-70.  This Court held that the reference  had\tbeen
\nvalidly made by the ITO to the IAC before April 1, 1971\t and
\nthe question was whether the amendment that came into effect
\non  April  1,  1971 divested the  IAC  of  his\tjurisdiction
\nbecause\t the  amount of concealed income did not  exceed  Rs
\n25,000 and the case did not fall within the ambit of Section
\n274(2) as amended.  The amending Act, it was noted, did\t not
\nmake  any provision that references validly  pending  before
\nthe IAC had to be returned without passing any final  orders
\nif
\n2 (1992) 2 SCC 514
\n3 (1979) 4 SCC 118: 1979 SCC (Tax) 294: (1979) 120 ITR 1
\n4 (1973) 3 SCC 207: 1973 SCC (Tax) 155: (1972) 86 ITR 557
\n5  1994 Supp (1) SCC 257 :(1993) 199 ITR 610
\n 268<\/span>
\nthe  amount  of income in respect of which  particulars\t had
\nbeen concealed did not exceed Rs 25,000.  This supported the
\ninference  that in a pending reference the IAC continued  to
\nhave  jurisdiction  to\timpose\ta  penalty.   The   previous
\noperation of Section 274(2) as it stood before April 1, 1971
\nand anything done thereunder continued to have effect  under
\nSection 6(b) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, enabling\t the
\nIAC  to pass orders imposing penalty in pending\t references.
\nWhat  was  material was the date upon which  the  references
\nwere  initiated.   If the references had  been\tmade  before
\nApril  1, 1971, they would be governed by Section 274(2)  as
\nit  stood before that date and the IAC had  jurisdiction  to
\npass orders of penalty.\n<\/p>\n
10.Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the  ITO
\nhad,  in the instant case, satisfied himself that there\t had
\nbeen  concealment of income on March 27, 1972, when he\tmade
\nthe  order  of\tassessment.  Such satisfaction\twas  a\tpre-
\nrequisite  to  the initiation of  the  penalty\tproceedings,
\nwhich  were initiated on the same day.\tOn that\t day,  under
\nthe  amended provisions of Section 274(2), the ITO  had\t the
\nauthority   to\timpose\tthe  penalty  upon   the   assessee.
\nTherefore,  the\t High  Court  had  answered  the   reference
\ncorrectly.\n<\/p>\n
11.A  penalty for concealment of particulars of income\tor
\nfor  furnishing\t inaccurate  particulars of  income  can  be
\nimposed only when the assessing authority is satisfied\tthat
\nthere has been such concealment or furnishing of  inaccurate
\nparticulars.   A  penalty  proceeding,\ttherefore,  can\t  be
\ninitiated only after an assessment order has been made which
\nfinds\tsuch   concealment  or\tfurnishing   of\t  inaccurate
\nparticulars.  Who at this point of time has the authority to
\nimpose\tthe  penalty  is what  is  relevant.   Whoever\tthis
\nauthority  may be, he is obliged to impose such\t penalty  as
\nwas permissible under the law in that behalf on the date  on
\nwhich  the offence of concealment of income  was  committed,
\nthat  is to say, on the date of the offending  return.\t The
\ntwo  aspects must firmly be borne in mind, namely,  who\t may
\nimpose the penalty and in what measure.\n<\/p>\n
12.In\tthe  instant  case,  when  the\tITO  reached   the
\nsatisfaction that the assessee had concealed income and made
\nthe  assessment\t order\ton  March  27,\t1972,  the   amended
\nprovisions  of\tSection 274(2) were in\toperation  and\tthey
\nentitled the ITO to impose penalty in cases where the amount
\nof income in respect of which particulars had been concealed
\nwas, as here, less than Rs 25,000.\n<\/p>\n
13.We  are,  therefore, of the view that  the  High  Court
\nanswered the question referred to it correctly.\t The appeal,
\ntherefore, is dismissed, with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
270<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Virkey Chacko vs C.I.T on 24 August, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC, Supl. (1) 264 JT 1993 (5) 58 Author: B S.P. Bench: Bharucha S.P. (J) PETITIONER: VIRKEY CHACKO Vs. RESPONDENT: C.I.T. DATE OF JUDGMENT24\/08\/1993 BENCH: BHARUCHA S.P. (J) BENCH: BHARUCHA S.P. (J) JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) CITATION: 1994 SCC Supl. […]<\/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-182662","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nVirkey Chacko vs C.I.T on 24 August, 1993 - 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\/virkey-chacko-vs-c-i-t-on-24-august-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Virkey Chacko vs C.I.T on 24 August, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virkey-chacko-vs-c-i-t-on-24-august-1993\" \/>\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=\"1993-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-07T19:27:50+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\\\/virkey-chacko-vs-c-i-t-on-24-august-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virkey-chacko-vs-c-i-t-on-24-august-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Virkey Chacko vs C.I.T on 24 August, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-07T19:27:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virkey-chacko-vs-c-i-t-on-24-august-1993\"},\"wordCount\":1888,\"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\\\/virkey-chacko-vs-c-i-t-on-24-august-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virkey-chacko-vs-c-i-t-on-24-august-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virkey-chacko-vs-c-i-t-on-24-august-1993\",\"name\":\"Virkey Chacko vs C.I.T on 24 August, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-07T19:27:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virkey-chacko-vs-c-i-t-on-24-august-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virkey-chacko-vs-c-i-t-on-24-august-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/virkey-chacko-vs-c-i-t-on-24-august-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Virkey Chacko vs C.I.T on 24 August, 1993\"}]},{\"@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":"Virkey Chacko vs C.I.T on 24 August, 1993 - 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\/virkey-chacko-vs-c-i-t-on-24-august-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Virkey Chacko vs C.I.T on 24 August, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virkey-chacko-vs-c-i-t-on-24-august-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-07T19:27:50+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\/virkey-chacko-vs-c-i-t-on-24-august-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virkey-chacko-vs-c-i-t-on-24-august-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Virkey Chacko vs C.I.T on 24 August, 1993","datePublished":"1993-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-07T19:27:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virkey-chacko-vs-c-i-t-on-24-august-1993"},"wordCount":1888,"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\/virkey-chacko-vs-c-i-t-on-24-august-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virkey-chacko-vs-c-i-t-on-24-august-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virkey-chacko-vs-c-i-t-on-24-august-1993","name":"Virkey Chacko vs C.I.T on 24 August, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-07T19:27:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virkey-chacko-vs-c-i-t-on-24-august-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virkey-chacko-vs-c-i-t-on-24-august-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/virkey-chacko-vs-c-i-t-on-24-august-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Virkey Chacko vs C.I.T on 24 August, 1993"}]},{"@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\/182662","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=182662"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182662\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=182662"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=182662"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=182662"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}