{"id":197794,"date":"2006-04-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-04-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-v-pradeep-kumar-on-19-april-2006"},"modified":"2017-03-17T08:34:02","modified_gmt":"2017-03-17T03:04:02","slug":"the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-v-pradeep-kumar-on-19-april-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-v-pradeep-kumar-on-19-april-2006","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs V.Pradeep Kumar on 19 April, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs V.Pradeep Kumar on 19 April, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 19\/04\/2006  \n\nCoram \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.BALASUBRAMANIAN            \nAND  \nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA           \n\nTax Case (Reference) No.31 of 2001 \n& 32 of 2001\n\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax,  \nT.Nadu-I, Madras.                       ...Applicant\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.     V.Pradeep Kumar\n2.      V.Praveen Kumar                     ...Respondents\n\n\n        Reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961  by  Income\nTax Appellate  Tribunal,  Madras,  'A'  Bench  in  I.T.A.   Nos.244\/Mds\/91 and\n245\/Mds\/91 for the assessment year 1986-87. \n\n!For Applicant :  Mrs.Pushya Sitaraman\n\nFor Respondents :  Mr.R.Venkataraman,  \n                Senior Counsel\n\n\n:JUDGMENT   \n<\/pre>\n
P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA, J.\n<\/p>\n
        The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras,  ‘A’  Bench,  referred  the
\nfollowing  question  of law at the instance of Revenue, under the direction of
\nthis Court in TCP Nos.77 & 78 of 1998 dated 29.07.1998, for  opinion  of  this
\nCourt,:\n<\/p>\n
“Whether  on  the  facts  and  in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate
\nTribunal had  valid  materials  to  give  a  finding  that  the  assessee  had
\nconstructed  a  residential  house  before  21.06.1988  and  thus eligible for
\nexemption under sec.54F of the Income Tax Act?”\n<\/p>\n
        2.      The facts leading to the above question of law are as under:
\n        The relevant  assessment  year  is  1986-87.     The   assessees   are
\nindividuals,  assessed by the Income Tax Officer, City Ward III(4) on 22.06.19\n<\/p>\n
85.  They sold a house property at No.40, Moore Street,  Madras-1,  which  was
\njointly  owned by them and each claimed exemption under Section 54F in respect
\nof 50% share of capital gain of Rs.8,25,957\/- in the  original  returns  which
\nwere  filed on 12.09.1986 declaring their intention to construct a residential
\nhouse within the specified period of three years i.e., before 21.06.1988.  The
\nassessments were completed under Section 143(1)(a).    Later  on,  they  filed
\nrevised  returns  admitting  taxable  capital  gains  of  Rs.1,63,487\/-,  each
\nclaiming partial exemption under Section 54F for the reason that they invested
\nthe capital gains in the new residential houses to an extent of  Rs.7,65,470\/-
\nonly.   The  assessments  were  reopened  under  Section 148 in both cases and
\nreassessments were completed on 30.03.1990, under  Section  143(3)  read  with
\nSection  147, taxing the entire capital gains of Rs.8,25,957\/- on the basis of
\nthe materials collected by the Assessing Officer.       Aggrieved by the order
\nof the Assessing Officer, the assessees filed appeals before the  Commissioner
\nof Income  Tax  (Appeals).  The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed
\nthe appeals and confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.    Aggrieved  by<\/p>\n
the  same,  the  assessees filed appeals to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
\nThe Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessees and granted  exemption
\nunder Section 54F.\n<\/p>\n
        3.      The   learned  Standing  Counsel  appearing  for  the  Revenue
\nsubmitted that there were no new construction of  residential  houses  by  the
\nassessees.  It is also brought to notice that there was an enquiry made by the
\nAssessing  Officer  with  the  Madras Corporation and found that the assessees
\napplied for approval of the plan for construction on 27.1 2.1989.  Further the
\norder of approval for the construction was granted on 09.02.1990.  Further the
\nassessee applied for approval for demolishing the above building on 27.12.1989
\nand the same was granted only on 09.02.1990.  Enquiry made by the Departmental
\nInspector as well as the local enquiry, revealed that there was  only  an  old
\nbuilding and  no  new  construction was built at all.  Hence there were no new
\nconstruction by the assessees.  Therefore the assessees are  not  entitled  to
\nexemption under Section 54F of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        4.      The learned Counsel appearing for the assessees submitted that
\nthere  were  new construction by both the assessees but they were unauthorised
\nconstruction and the same were demolished later.   Further  it  was  submitted
\nthat the  buildings  were  constructed  and plan was also made.  Subsequently,
\nthey were demolished for the purpose of modernisation.   Since  the  buildings
\nwere  constructed  and  substantial amount of money was spent, the Revenue was
\nnot justified in bringing the whole amount of capital gain tax.    Further  it
\nwas  contended  that  the Tribunal had given a factual finding that there were
\nconstruction of new buildings and hence this Court should not  interfere  with
\nthe factual  finding  of  the Tribunal under reference.  It is also emphasised
\nthat Section 54F is a beneficial provision and hence the Court should construe
\nthe said provision liberally.\n<\/p>\n
        5.      We heard the arguments of both the sides.\n<\/p>\n
        Certain dates are very much important for  this  case,  which  are  as
\nbelow:\n<\/p>\n
                                        V.Pradeep Kumar V.Praveen Kumar<\/p>\n
1)Date of sale of property 22.6.1985 22.6.1985
\nin Moore Street
\n(Purchase & construction
\nto be completed before
\n22.6.1988)<\/p>\n
2)Date of purchase of property 9.3.1988 6.4.1988
\nat Giri Road\n<\/p>\n
3)Date of construction of two 15.4.1988 15.4.1988
\nindividual property started
\nfrom<\/p>\n
4)Date of payment made to 10.6.1988 & 10.6.1988 &
\nContractor                              20.6.1988 20.6.1988<\/p>\n
5)Date of completion of con-<\/p>\n
\nstruction by Contractor 20.6.1988 20.6.1988\n\n6)Date of inspection by the\nvaluer to the two separate\nbuiding                                 29.6.1988 29.6.1988\n\n7)Date of cost of construction\nand valuation report            30.6.1988 30.6.1988\n\n<\/pre>\n
Section  54F deals with capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not
\nto be charged in case of investment in residential house.  The  section  reads
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
S.54F.   Capital  gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged
\nin case of investment in residential house.-(1) [Subject to the provisions  of
\nsub-section  (4),  where,  in the case of an assessee being an individual or a
\nHindu undivided family], the capital gain arises  from  the  transfer  of  any
\nlong-term  capital  asset,  not  being  a residential house (hereafter in this
\nsection referred to as the original asset), and the  assessee  has,  within  a
\nperiod  of one year before or [two years] after the date on which the transfer
\ntook place purchased, or has within a period of three years afte r  that  date
\nconstructed, a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the
\nnew  asset),  the  capital  gain  shall  be  dealt with in accordance with the
\nfollowing provisions of this section, that is to say,-\n<\/p>\n
        (a)  if  the  cost  of  the  new  asset  is  not  less  than  the  net
\nconsideration in respect of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain
\nshall not be charged under section 45;\n<\/p>\n
        (b) if the cost of the new asset is less than the net consideration in
\nrespect  of  the  original  asset, so much of the capital gain as bears to the
\nwhole of the capital gain the same proportion as the cost  of  the  new  asset
\nbears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45:\n<\/p>\n
        Provided  that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where
\nthe assessee owns on the date of  the  transfer  of  the  original  asset,  or
\npurchases,  within  the  period  of  one  year after such date, or constructs,
\nwithin the period of three years after such date, any residential  house,  the
\nincome  from which is chargeable under the head ” Income from house property”,
\nother than the new asset.”\n<\/p>\n
The above section was inserted by the Finance Act of 1982 with effect from 1st
\nMarch 1983.  The conditions precedent for getting exemption are:\n<\/p>\n
1.      Transfer of any long term  capital  assets  not  being  a  residential
\nhouse.\n<\/p>\n
2.      The assessee purchases within a period of one year before or two years
\nafter  the  date on which the transfer took place or construct within a period
\nof three years after the date of transfer, any residential house.\n<\/p>\n
From a reading of the above, what we have to see in this case is  whether  the
\nassessees  had  constructed  residential houses within a period of three years
\nafter the date of transfer or not.  From the above tabular column, it is clear
\nthat the date of sale of property was on 22.06.1985 and the date  of  purchase
\nof  property  was on 09.03.1988 in the case of Sri.V.Pradeep Kumar in Tax Case
\nNo.31 of 2001 and 06.04.1988 in the case of Sri.V.Praveen Kumar  in  Tax  Case
\nNo.32 of  2001.   The assessees stated that they commenced the construction of
\nnew residential houses from  15.04.1988  and  completed  the  construction  on
\n20.06.198 8.   The due date for completing the construction was on 20.06.1988.
\nThe findings given by the Tribunal for each construction of new houses are  as
\nbelow:\n<\/p>\n
“Actually the assessees applied to the Corporation of Madras vide their letter
\ndated 23-12-89.    Along with this letter, they enclosed photostat copy of the
\nsale deed, copy of property transfer issued by the Corporation,  seven  copies
\nof  the  demolition plan, seven copies of construction plan and indemnity bond
\nand affidavit.  In one blue print, the plan of the proposed  new  construction
\nof 5085 sq.ft.    was  exhibited.    The  said  building  was  proposed  to be
\nconstructed in ground floor as well  as  first  floor.    In  this  plan,  the
\nArchitect Savitha  Chowdhry  put the date as 4-12-1989.  In another blue print
\nthe building to be demolished was shown.  The total area to be demolished  was
\nshown at  1852  sq.ft.  In the said blue print, the Architect Savitha Chowdhry
\nput the date as 17-10-89.  In the said blue print  for  which  demolition  was
\napplied  for, the old building as it existed as per the sale deed dated 9-3-88
\nwas shown.  The actual claim of these assessees is that Shri Pradeep Kumar had
\nundertaken some n ew construction by way of  extension  to  the  old  existing
\nbuilding both in the ground floor and in the first floor.  This can be seen at
\npages  71 and 71A in coloured portion in paper book No.1 filed by Shri Pradeep
\nKumar.  Shri Praveen Kumar claimed to have constructed a small building of 382
\nsq.ft.  by demolishing the old existing A.C.C.  Roofed outhouse of 324  sq.ft.
\ndescribed in  the sale deed dated 6-4-88.  They further claimed that they were
\nunauthorised constructions \/ extensions and that there  were  no  applications
\nfor approval to the Corporation of Madras and that they were later pulled down
\nto enable them to go in for an approval and authorised construction.”\n<\/p>\n
We  have  gone  through all the materials available on record and we find that
\nthere  was  an  inspection  on  14.02.1990  by  the  Assessing   Officer   and
\ncontemporary  photographs  of  the existing buildings were taken on 16.02.1990
\nand in consequence of the above, the Revenue rightly  established  that  there
\nwere  not  in  existence of any such constructed house properties, instead the
\nold building from which the doors and windows have been removed  as  could  be
\nseen from  the  photographs  which are in possession of the Department.  It is
\nclear from the contemporaneous evidence available on record that there were no
\nnew residential houses exhibited on the plot in question.   Further,  we  have
\nalso  seen that the assessees got approval from the Corporation of Madras only
\non 09.02.1990 for demolishing the old existing building at the said plot,  and
\nthe  completion  of  the  full demolition has been carried out by the assessee
\nonly at the end of March 1990.  This evidence clearly go  to  prove  that  the
\nexisting  old building which was purchased, was completely demolished in March
\n1990 only.  The burden is on the assessees to prove  that  they  had  actually
\nconstructed  new residential houses for purpose of the exemption under Section
\n54F of the Income Tax Act.  It is stated by the  counsel  for  the  assessees,
\nthat  the  assessees  had  constructed  new  residential houses, but they were
\nunauthorised construction and the same unauthorised  construction  were  later
\ndemolished for  purpose  of modernisation.  In this case, there is no tangible
\nmaterial to even infer that a residential house was constructed.  One  of  the
\nassessees  say  there  was an extension to an existing structure and the other
\nsays the out-house was demolished; a new construction was put up in its  place
\nand  both  being unauthorised, have been pulled down on their own voluntarily.
\nSection 54F  emphasises  construction  of  residential  house.      The   said
\nconstruction must  be  real  one.    It should not be a symbolic construction.
\nFurther it is seen  from  the  finding  of  the  Tribunal  that  the  assessee
\nSri.Pradeep  Kumar had undertaken an extension work in the old building in the
\nground floor and first floor.  From the above finding it is clear  that  there
\nis no  residential  house  and it is only an extension of the old building.  A
\nmere extension of the existing building will not give benefit to the  assessee
\nas contemplated under  Section  54F  of the Act.  In the case of Sri.  Praveen
\nKumar, it was stated by the Tribunal that he had constructed a small  building
\nmeasuring 382sq.ft.   by  demolishing  the existing A.C.C.  roofed outhouse of
\n324 sq.ft.  We have already noted that there is no acceptable proof  for  such
\nconstruction.  Mere construction by way of extension of the old existing house
\nwould  not mean constructing a residential house as contemplated under Section
\n54F of the Act.  The argument of the  counsel  for  the  assessees  about  the
\nconstruction  of  residential houses is not based on any valid material and is
\nnot entitled to the benefit of Section 54F of the Act.    Also,  there  is  no
\nevidence  or  contemporaneous  documents  available  to  show  that there were
\nconstruction.  In our opinion, the assessees failed to satisfy the  conditions
\ncontemplated under  Section 54F of the Act.  The other argument of the counsel
\nis that, when the Tribunal had come to a conclusion based  on  evidence,  this
\nCourt normally  will not interfere under reference.  In this case, the finding
\nof the Tribunal was based on no material  and  evidence.    The  Tribunal  had
\nconsidered  only  irrelevant  materials  and  the  order  of the Tribunal is a
\nperverse one.  In such circumstance, the Court can interfere under  reference.
\nThe Supreme  Court judgments reported in 87 ITR 370 in the case of C.I.T.  Vs.
\nS.P.Jain and 37 ITR 151 in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait  Vs.    C.I.T.,
\nheld  that  the  High  Court  has undoubted jurisdiction to interfere with the
\nfindings of the Tribunal if it appears that either the Tribunal has arrived at
\na finding based on no  evidence  or  its  finding  is  inconsistent  with  the
\nevidence  on  record  or  it  has acted on material partly relevant and partly
\nirrelevant or it  draws  upon  its  own  imagination  and  imports  facts  and
\ncircumstances  not apparent from the record or it bases its conclusion on mere
\nconjectures or surmises or no person judicially acting or properly  instructed
\nas  to  the  relevant  law could have come to the determination reached by the
\nTribunal.  This Court, in the case of C.I.T.  Vs.  Coromandel  Indag  Products
\nLimited,  reported  in  265  ITR  611, considered the scope of reference under
\nSection 256 of the Act and held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“As far as the decisions of the Supreme Court in Badal  Ram  Laxmi  Narain  v.
\nCIT [1991] 191  ITR  296  and CIT v.  Cellulose Products of India Ltd.  [1991]
\n192 ITR 155 are concerned, it is axiomatic that  the  High  Court  should  not
\ninterfere  with  the  Tribunal’s  finding  of  fact  even  if  another view is
\npossible.  The Supreme Court has also held  that  the  High  Court  hearing  a
\nreference  under  the Income Tax Act does not exercise appellate or revisional
\nor supervisory jurisdiction over the Appellate Tribunal and that it acts in  a
\npurely and  advisory capacity.  We are of the view that if the Tribunal, after
\nconsidering the evidences produced before it on a question  of  fact,  records
\nthe  finding,  this Court will not interfere with such finding unless the said
\nfinding  is  not  supported  by  any  evidence  or  is  perverse  or  patently
\nunreasonable.”\n<\/p>\n
In the present case, the finding of the Tribunal is not based on any evidence.
\nThe  order  of  the  Tribunal  is  perverse  and  it is patently erroneous and
\nunreasonable,  because  it  has  overlooked  the  materials  produced  by  the
\nAssessing Officer and in the absence of any material, the Tribunal had come to
\nan  erroneous  conclusion,  and hence the Court can interfere under reference.
\nThe documents relied on by the assessees before the Tribunal were mere letters
\naddressed by Y.R.  Srinivasan, who is the architect.  The said  architect  had
\ngiven  a  quotation  and  bill dated 27.06.1988 and his acknowledgement of the
\nreceipt of a sum of Rs.75,000\/- from each of these two  assessees,  which  are
\nnot  sufficient  to  prove that there were construction of residential houses.
\nThe said documents and other evidences were produced  first  time  before  the
\nIncome Tax  Appellate  Tribunal.    But  the  Revenue had relied on Inspection
\nReport and also verified with the Madras Corporation  and  further  they  have
\ntaken  photographs of the place and all these documents reveal that there were
\nonly an extension of old building.  Further the learned counsel submitted that
\nSection 54F is a  beneficial  provision  and  the  same  should  be  construed
\nliberally.  For the purpose of exemption under Section 54F, the assessees must
\nconstruct  residential  houses  within  three years from the date of transfer.
\nThe question here is whether the assessees constructed residential  houses  or
\nnot.   In  this  case,  there is no proof for the construction of the same and
\nhence the assessees are not entitled to relief under Section 54F of  the  Act.
\nThe  argument that construing the provision liberally does not arise here when
\nwe are concerned with  the  factual  issue.    The  learned  counsel  for  the
\nassessees  relied  on  a number of judgments to support his arguments and they
\nare as under:\n<\/p>\n
a)      Supreme Court judgment reported in 120 ITR 46 in the    case        of
\nCommissioner of Income-tax Vs.  T.N.Aravinda    Reddy.\n<\/p>\n
b)      Calcutta High Court judgment reported in 132 ITR 150 in the   case  of
\nB.B.Sarkar Vs.  Commissioner of Income-tax,     West Bengal-IV.\n<\/p>\n
c)      Delhi High Court judgment reported in 132 ITR 661 in    the  case   of
\nAddl.  Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-       II Vs.  Vidya Prakash Talwar.\n<\/p>\n
d)      Madras High Court judgment reported in 181 ITR 101 in   the   case  of
\nCommissioner of Income-tax Vs.  P.V.Narasimhan.\n<\/p>\n
e)      Karnataka High Court judgment reported in 165 ITR 571,  in the case of
\nCommissioner of Income-tax Vs.  J.R.Subramanya Bhat.\n<\/p>\n
f)      Supreme Court judgment reported in 53 ITR 574 in the    case        of
\nCommissioner of Income-tax (Central), Calcutta  Vs.  Daulatram Rawatmull.\n<\/p>\n
g)      Supreme Court judgment reported in 254 ITR 216 in the   case   of   J.
\nJ.Enterprises Vs.  Commissioner of Income-tax.\n<\/p>\n
h)      Allahabad High Court judgment reported in 202 ITR 728   in the case of
\nCommissioner of Income-tax Vs.  Cupro   Industrial Corporation.
\nWe have gone through the above judgments and they  are  not  relevant  to  the
\nfacts of this case and hence we are not dealing with the same.\n<\/p>\n
        6.      In  the  foregoing  reasons,  we are of the opinion that there
\nwere no construction and the claims made by the assessees for exemption  under
\nSection 54F  were  factually  unacceptable.    Hence we answer the question in
\nfavour of the Revenue and against the assessees.  No costs.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs V.Pradeep Kumar on 19 April, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19\/04\/2006 Coram THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.BALASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA Tax Case (Reference) No.31 of 2001 & 32 of 2001 The Commissioner of Income Tax, T.Nadu-I, Madras. …Applicant -Vs- […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-197794","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Commissioner Of Income Tax vs V.Pradeep Kumar on 19 April, 2006 - 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-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-v-pradeep-kumar-on-19-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs V.Pradeep Kumar on 19 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-v-pradeep-kumar-on-19-april-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-17T03:04:02+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=\"15 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-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-v-pradeep-kumar-on-19-april-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-v-pradeep-kumar-on-19-april-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs V.Pradeep Kumar on 19 April, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-17T03:04:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-v-pradeep-kumar-on-19-april-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2946,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-v-pradeep-kumar-on-19-april-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-v-pradeep-kumar-on-19-april-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-v-pradeep-kumar-on-19-april-2006\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs V.Pradeep Kumar on 19 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-17T03:04:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-v-pradeep-kumar-on-19-april-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-v-pradeep-kumar-on-19-april-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-v-pradeep-kumar-on-19-april-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs V.Pradeep Kumar on 19 April, 2006\"}]},{\"@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 Commissioner Of Income Tax vs V.Pradeep Kumar on 19 April, 2006 - 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-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-v-pradeep-kumar-on-19-april-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs V.Pradeep Kumar on 19 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-v-pradeep-kumar-on-19-april-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-17T03:04:02+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-v-pradeep-kumar-on-19-april-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-v-pradeep-kumar-on-19-april-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs V.Pradeep Kumar on 19 April, 2006","datePublished":"2006-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-17T03:04:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-v-pradeep-kumar-on-19-april-2006"},"wordCount":2946,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-v-pradeep-kumar-on-19-april-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-v-pradeep-kumar-on-19-april-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-v-pradeep-kumar-on-19-april-2006","name":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs V.Pradeep Kumar on 19 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-17T03:04:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-v-pradeep-kumar-on-19-april-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-v-pradeep-kumar-on-19-april-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-v-pradeep-kumar-on-19-april-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs V.Pradeep Kumar on 19 April, 2006"}]},{"@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\/197794","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=197794"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197794\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197794"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197794"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197794"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}