{"id":230238,"date":"2002-06-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-06-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/comunidade-of-chicalim-by-its-vs-income-tax-officer-ward-i-on-11-june-2002"},"modified":"2017-02-27T00:33:29","modified_gmt":"2017-02-26T19:03:29","slug":"comunidade-of-chicalim-by-its-vs-income-tax-officer-ward-i-on-11-june-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/comunidade-of-chicalim-by-its-vs-income-tax-officer-ward-i-on-11-june-2002","title":{"rendered":"Comunidade Of Chicalim, By Its &#8230; vs Income Tax Officer, Ward I, &#8230; on 11 June, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Bombay High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Comunidade Of Chicalim, By Its &#8230; vs Income Tax Officer, Ward I, &#8230; on 11 June, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: (2003) 180 CTR Bom 76, 2002 258 ITR 183 Bom<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V C Daga<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: V Daga, P Hardas<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>V. C. Daga, J.<\/p>\n<p> 1. The  present  petitioner,   the  Comunidade  of<br \/>\nChicalim,  filed this petition to challenge Notice issued<br \/>\nunder  Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (the  &#8220;IT<br \/>\nAct&#8221;  for  short),  dated 18th March, 1991,  bearing  No.<br \/>\nO.21\/W1 (Annexure P. 4) and by an  interim  order  further<br \/>\nproceedings pursuant to the Notice were stayed.\n<\/p>\n<p> FACTS IN BRIEF  <\/p>\n<p> 2.   The Income Tax Officer, Ward No. I, Margao,<br \/>\nGoa,  has issued the above Notice on the grounds that  he<br \/>\nhas  a reason to believe that the petitioners income  in<br \/>\nthe status of body of individuals (BOI) chargeable to tax<br \/>\nfor   the   Assessment  Year   1986-1987,   has   escaped<br \/>\nassessment,  within the meaning of Section 147 of the  IT<br \/>\nAct  and  that, therefore, he proposes to  re-assess  the<br \/>\npetitioners income for the said Assessment Year.  He has<br \/>\nrequired the petitioner to deliver to him a return in the<br \/>\nprescribed  form, of the petitioners income for the said<br \/>\nAssessment Year 1986-1987.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3.   The  petitioner,  after   receipt  of  the<br \/>\naforesaid  Notice  under  Section 148 of the IT  Act,  by<br \/>\nletter dated 19th April, 1991, called upon the respondent<br \/>\nno.1,  Income  Tax Officer, to disclose the  reasons,  if<br \/>\nany,  recorded  by him before issuing Notice  dated  18th<br \/>\nMarch,  1991,  proposing to re-open his assessment.   The<br \/>\nrespondent  no. 1 did not care to communicate reasons  for<br \/>\nthe proposed re-opening, with the result, the petitioner,<br \/>\nwas  required to approach this Court.  The petitioner  in<br \/>\nthe petition has contended that Notice has been issued by<br \/>\nthe  Income  Tax  Officer, Ward I, Margao,  Goa,  without<br \/>\nrecording  reasons  and also without complying  with  the<br \/>\nmandatory  basic  requirements of Section 147 of  the  IT<br \/>\nAct.   As  such  the  action  complained  of  is  without<br \/>\nauthority of law.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4.   On being noticed, the respondents appeared<br \/>\nand filed their affidavit in reply, making bald  averment<br \/>\ntherein  to the effect that specific reasons for adopting<br \/>\nthe  status  of  BOI as against AOP are recorded  in  the<br \/>\norder  sheet.   However, no copy of the order  sheet  has<br \/>\nbeen  produced  alongwith  the affidavit  in  reply.   No<br \/>\nreasons  for  issuing Notice under Section 148 of the  IT<br \/>\nAct are to be found in the counter-affidavit.  No copy of<br \/>\nthe  reasons alleged to have been recorded is produced on<br \/>\nrecord,  inspite  of  specific   assertion  made  in  the<br \/>\npetition  that no such reasons existed, and\/or no reasons<br \/>\nwere  recorded before directing Notice under Section  148<br \/>\nof  the  IT  Act.  Apart from the stray averments in  the<br \/>\naffidavit  in reply, no other material has been placed on<br \/>\nrecord  in support of Notice under Section 148 of the  IT<br \/>\nAct.\n<\/p>\n<p> SUBMISSIONS  <\/p>\n<p> 5.   The  learned  counsel for  the  petitioner<br \/>\ncontended  that  the Income Tax Officer had  no  material<br \/>\nbefore him for entertaining belief that income chargeable<br \/>\nto  tax has escaped to be assessed.  In the submission of<br \/>\nthe  petitioner two conditions precedent are required  to<br \/>\nbe  fulfilled before the Income Tax Officer can  exercise<br \/>\njurisdiction  under  Clause (a) of Section 147 of the  IT<br \/>\nAct.  These conditions are:-\n<\/p>\n<p> (i)  He  must have reason  to  believe<br \/>\nthat the income has escaped assessment; and  <\/p>\n<p> (ii) that such escapement is by reason<br \/>\nof  the omission or failure on the part  of<br \/>\nthe  assessee  to  make  a  return  or   to<br \/>\ndisclose fully and truly all material facts<br \/>\nnecessary   for  his   assessment  for  the<br \/>\nrelevant year.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> The petitioner further submitted that if the existence of<br \/>\nthese facts is challenged by the assessee before the High<br \/>\nCourt,  it  is for the Income Tax Officer to satisfy  the<br \/>\nCourt  about  the  existence  of the same  by  filing  an<br \/>\naffidavit  and  producing  relevant record.   Apart  from<br \/>\nthis,  there is nothing in the counter-affidavit filed by<br \/>\nthe Revenue to suggest that there was failure on the part<br \/>\nof the assessee to make a return or to disclose fully and<br \/>\ntruly   all  material  facts   necessary   for   relevant<br \/>\nAssessment  Year 1986-1987.  No indication in this behalf<br \/>\nis  to be found in the affidavit-in-reply.  No such  case<br \/>\nhas   been  made  out  by   the  respondents   in   their<br \/>\ncounter-affidavit and\/or return.  The learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe  petitioner thus contended that the first  respondent<br \/>\nacted  beyond  jurisdiction conferred on him  and  Notice<br \/>\nunder  Section 148 of the IT Act is liable to be  quashed<br \/>\nand set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6.   The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the<br \/>\npetitioner relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in<br \/>\nthe   case  of  <a href=\"\/doc\/1606048\/\">Madhya   Pradesh  Industries  Ltd.    vs.<br \/>\nIncome-Tax  Officer,  Special Investigation  Circle  B,<br \/>\nNagpur,<\/a>  (1965) 56 ITR 637 and submitted that there is no<br \/>\ncounter-affidavit filed, as such this Court has to accept<br \/>\nthe allegations made in the petition and quash the notice<br \/>\nwhich is challenged in the petition.  The learned counsel<br \/>\nfor  the  petitioner also relied on the judgment  of  the<br \/>\nDivision  Bench of this Court in the case of Devji  Rajvi<br \/>\nPatel  vs.   Balasubramaniam &amp; Ors., 210 (1994)  925,  in<br \/>\nsupport of his contention.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7.   The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the<br \/>\nrespondents,  when  called upon to justify  the  defence,<br \/>\nprayed for adjournment so as to produce relevant material<br \/>\nbefore  this  Court.  As a matter of fact,  affidavit  in<br \/>\nreply  has  been  filed on record in the month  of  June,<br \/>\n2001.   It  was  open  for  the  respondents  to  produce<br \/>\nrelevant  material alongwith their affidavit.  We do  not<br \/>\napprove  this  method of producing documents  across  the<br \/>\nBar.   Ample  opportunity and time was available  to  the<br \/>\nrespondents  to produce adequate and relevant material in<br \/>\nsupport of their defence as the petition is pending since<br \/>\n1991.   This  petition  was dismissed by  this  Court  in<br \/>\nlimine  by  Order dated 19th November, 1991.  The  matter<br \/>\nwas  carried to the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7314 of<br \/>\n1996.  The order of of this Court dismissing the petition<br \/>\nin  limine, came to be set aside in appeal by Order dated<br \/>\n28th July, 2000.  While disposing of the Appeal, the Apex<br \/>\nCourt specifically directed that the Writ Petition should<br \/>\nbe  decided  expeditiously.   That  is  how,  today  this<br \/>\npetition  was  placed before us for final hearing.   This<br \/>\npetition came up for final hearing on the second occasion<br \/>\nin  last 11 years.  Thus, considering the pendency of the<br \/>\npetition since 1991 and the directions issued by the Apex<br \/>\nCourt  to  hear this petition expeditiously,  adjournment<br \/>\nsought  was refused and accordingly we proceeded to  hear<br \/>\nthis matter.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8.  Per contra, learned counsel for the Revenue<br \/>\nin    the    above    circumstances    relied   on    the<br \/>\ncounter-affidavit  and tried to justify the action of the<br \/>\nIncome-Tax   Officer   on   merits.   Alternatively,   he<br \/>\nsubmitted  that  alternate remedy by way of appeal  being<br \/>\navailable  to  the  petitioner,  this  Court  should  not<br \/>\nexercise  writ  jurisdiction  under Article  226  of  the<br \/>\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p> CONSIDERATIONS  <\/p>\n<p> 9.    The   petitioner,   in   this   petition,<br \/>\nspecifically  challenged the existence of the  conditions<br \/>\nprecedent for issuance of the Notice under Section 148 of<br \/>\nthe  IT Act.  The law is well-settled on this point  that<br \/>\nif  existence of the conditions precedent for issuance of<br \/>\nNotice  under Section 148 of the IT Act is challenged  by<br \/>\nthe  assessee  before  the Court on oath, it is  for  the<br \/>\nIncome-Tax  Officer  to  satisfy   the  Court  about  the<br \/>\nexistence of the conditions precedent by filing affidavit<br \/>\nand\/or  producing relevant records.  If on  consideration<br \/>\nof  the  said material, the Court is satisfied  that  the<br \/>\nconditions precedent did exist at the time the Notice was<br \/>\nissued,  the  challenge may be turned down by the  Court.<br \/>\nIn  the absence of any material whatsoever placed by  the<br \/>\nIncome-Tax  Officer  to  disprove the  challenge  of  the<br \/>\nassessee  to  the existence of the conditions  precedent,<br \/>\nthe  Writ Petition cannot be dismissed.  Reference may be<br \/>\nmade  in  this connection to the decision of the  Supreme<br \/>\nCourt  in  the  case of Madhya  Pradesh  Industries  Ltd.<br \/>\n(cited  supra).  that was a case under Section 34 of  the<br \/>\nIndian  Income-Tax Act 1922 (corresponding to Section 148<br \/>\nof  the  IT  Act).   The Notice  was  challenged  by  the<br \/>\nassessee  before the High Court by filing writ  petition.<br \/>\nThe  High  Court dismissed the Writ Petition  in  limine.<br \/>\nThe Apex Court held that upon receipt of the Notice under<br \/>\nSection  34 of the Indian Income-Tax Act 1922, a claim is<br \/>\nmade  in a writ petition that the Income-Tax Officer  had<br \/>\nno  power  to  issue  the notice and that  the  power  is<br \/>\nexercised not for any legitimate purpose for which it may<br \/>\nbe  used, but for the purpose of making a fishing enquiry<br \/>\nand  to  review  a previous order made in favour  of  the<br \/>\npetitioner,  a  rule upon the Income-Tax Officer to  show<br \/>\ncause  why  the  notice should not be set  aside  and  an<br \/>\nopportunity  to him either to accept or to deny the facts<br \/>\nand  to  set  out  such other material facts  as  have  a<br \/>\nbearing  on  the question, is at least called  for.   The<br \/>\nApex  Court  also observed that when the  party  claiming<br \/>\nrelief challenges on oath the existence of the conditions<br \/>\nwhich  confer jurisdiction, and sets out facts which may,<br \/>\nunless  disproved,  support his case an order  dismissing<br \/>\nhis petition in limine may not properly be made out.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10.  In the present case, the Writ Petition was<br \/>\ndismissed in limine.  However, the Apex Court was pleased<br \/>\nto  remand this matter for disposal on merit.  As already<br \/>\nobserved  hereinabove, this petition is of 1991.   Almost<br \/>\ntwo years have passed after the remand by the Apex Court.<br \/>\nThe  matter was on board for hearing, but no attempt  was<br \/>\nmade  to produce on record the reasons for issuing Notice<br \/>\nunder  Section  148 of the IT Act.  No material is to  be<br \/>\nfound  in  the affidavit.  The learned counsel  appearing<br \/>\nfor  the  petitioner submits that in the absence  of  any<br \/>\nmaterial placed by the Revenue in respect of jurisdiction<br \/>\nof  the Income Tax Officer, this Writ Petition should  be<br \/>\nallowed.   The impugned Notice should be quashed and  set<br \/>\naside.  Our attention has also been drawn to the decision<br \/>\nof this Court in Devji Ravji Patel (cited supra), wherein<br \/>\nrelying   on  the  above   decision  in  Madhya   Pradesh<br \/>\nIndustries  Ltd.,  (at  page 641), this Court  held  that<br \/>\n&#8220;neither  the  contention whether the disclosure made  by<br \/>\nthe assessee was full and true in respect of all material<br \/>\nfacts  necessary for the assessment can be determined  in<br \/>\nthe  absence  of an affidavit by the Income-Tax  Officer,<br \/>\nnor  the plea that the impugned notice was issued with  a<br \/>\ncollateral object could be rejected without an enquiry.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 11.  The aforesaid decision squarely applies to<br \/>\nthe  present  case as stated above, though affidavit  has<br \/>\nbeen  filed  on record by the Income-Tax Officer  denying<br \/>\nthe  allegations, but no material is placed on record  to<br \/>\njustify the denial.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12.   The other contention of the petitioner is<br \/>\nthat   the   petitioner  had   disclosed   all   material<br \/>\nparticulars  of  his income, including his status in  the<br \/>\nreturn filed by him.  As such there was no failure on his<br \/>\npart  to  disclose  fully and truly  all  material  facts<br \/>\nnecessary  for his assessment for the relevant year.   In<br \/>\nthis  backdrop,  he  further  submits that  there  is  no<br \/>\naverment  in the affidavit to assert that the  escapement<br \/>\nis  by  reason of the omission or failure on the part  of<br \/>\nthe  assessee  to  make return or to  disclose  fully  or<br \/>\ntruly,  all  material facts necessary for his  assessment<br \/>\nfor the relevant Assessment Year.  He, therefore, submits<br \/>\nthat in the absence of any averment in this behalf in the<br \/>\naffidavit, this Court should legitimately presume that no<br \/>\nreasons  are  recorded  at least for complying  with  the<br \/>\nsecond  condition  precedent required for issuing  notice<br \/>\nunder  Section  148 of the IT Act.  If the  existence  of<br \/>\nthese  facts  is  challenged by the assessee  before  the<br \/>\nCourt,  it  was obligatory on the part of the  Income-Tax<br \/>\nOfficer to satisfy the Court even on the second mandatory<br \/>\nrequirement  of the Section.  In our view the  submission<br \/>\nis  well  made  out.  No material is to be found  in  the<br \/>\naffidavit   complying   with    this   second   mandatory<br \/>\nrequirement of the Section 148 of the IT Act.\n<\/p>\n<p> CONCLUSION  <\/p>\n<p> 13.   In  view of the above this Court  has  no<br \/>\noption  but  to quash and set aside the  impugned  Notice<br \/>\nunder  Section  148 of the IT Act.  We, therefore,  quash<br \/>\nthe same.\n<\/p>\n<p> In  the result, this Writ Petition is  allowed.<br \/>\nRule  is made absolute in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) of the petition, with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Bombay High Court Comunidade Of Chicalim, By Its &#8230; vs Income Tax Officer, Ward I, &#8230; on 11 June, 2002 Equivalent citations: (2003) 180 CTR Bom 76, 2002 258 ITR 183 Bom Author: V C Daga Bench: V Daga, P Hardas JUDGMENT V. C. Daga, J. 1. The present petitioner, the Comunidade of Chicalim, filed [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-230238","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Comunidade Of Chicalim, By Its ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward I, ... on 11 June, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/comunidade-of-chicalim-by-its-vs-income-tax-officer-ward-i-on-11-june-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Comunidade Of Chicalim, By Its ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward I, ... on 11 June, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/comunidade-of-chicalim-by-its-vs-income-tax-officer-ward-i-on-11-june-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-06-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-26T19:03:29+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\\\/comunidade-of-chicalim-by-its-vs-income-tax-officer-ward-i-on-11-june-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/comunidade-of-chicalim-by-its-vs-income-tax-officer-ward-i-on-11-june-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Comunidade Of Chicalim, By Its &#8230; vs Income Tax Officer, Ward I, &#8230; on 11 June, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-06-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-26T19:03:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/comunidade-of-chicalim-by-its-vs-income-tax-officer-ward-i-on-11-june-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2019,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/comunidade-of-chicalim-by-its-vs-income-tax-officer-ward-i-on-11-june-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/comunidade-of-chicalim-by-its-vs-income-tax-officer-ward-i-on-11-june-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/comunidade-of-chicalim-by-its-vs-income-tax-officer-ward-i-on-11-june-2002\",\"name\":\"Comunidade Of Chicalim, By Its ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward I, ... on 11 June, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-06-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-26T19:03:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/comunidade-of-chicalim-by-its-vs-income-tax-officer-ward-i-on-11-june-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/comunidade-of-chicalim-by-its-vs-income-tax-officer-ward-i-on-11-june-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/comunidade-of-chicalim-by-its-vs-income-tax-officer-ward-i-on-11-june-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Comunidade Of Chicalim, By Its &#8230; vs Income Tax Officer, Ward I, &#8230; on 11 June, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Comunidade Of Chicalim, By Its ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward I, ... on 11 June, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/comunidade-of-chicalim-by-its-vs-income-tax-officer-ward-i-on-11-june-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Comunidade Of Chicalim, By Its ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward I, ... on 11 June, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/comunidade-of-chicalim-by-its-vs-income-tax-officer-ward-i-on-11-june-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-06-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-26T19:03:29+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\/comunidade-of-chicalim-by-its-vs-income-tax-officer-ward-i-on-11-june-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/comunidade-of-chicalim-by-its-vs-income-tax-officer-ward-i-on-11-june-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Comunidade Of Chicalim, By Its &#8230; vs Income Tax Officer, Ward I, &#8230; on 11 June, 2002","datePublished":"2002-06-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-26T19:03:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/comunidade-of-chicalim-by-its-vs-income-tax-officer-ward-i-on-11-june-2002"},"wordCount":2019,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/comunidade-of-chicalim-by-its-vs-income-tax-officer-ward-i-on-11-june-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/comunidade-of-chicalim-by-its-vs-income-tax-officer-ward-i-on-11-june-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/comunidade-of-chicalim-by-its-vs-income-tax-officer-ward-i-on-11-june-2002","name":"Comunidade Of Chicalim, By Its ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward I, ... on 11 June, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-06-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-26T19:03:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/comunidade-of-chicalim-by-its-vs-income-tax-officer-ward-i-on-11-june-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/comunidade-of-chicalim-by-its-vs-income-tax-officer-ward-i-on-11-june-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/comunidade-of-chicalim-by-its-vs-income-tax-officer-ward-i-on-11-june-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Comunidade Of Chicalim, By Its &#8230; vs Income Tax Officer, Ward I, &#8230; on 11 June, 2002"}]},{"@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\/230238","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=230238"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230238\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=230238"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=230238"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=230238"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}