{"id":250209,"date":"1996-04-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-04-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-jagdish-chandra-sinha-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-23-april-1996"},"modified":"2015-09-30T10:59:25","modified_gmt":"2015-09-30T05:29:25","slug":"kumar-jagdish-chandra-sinha-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-23-april-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-jagdish-chandra-sinha-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-23-april-1996","title":{"rendered":"Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West … on 23 April, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West … on 23 April, 1996<\/div>\n
Author: B J Reddy.J.<\/div>\n
Bench: B.P. Jeevan Reddy, K.T. Thomas<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKUMAR JAGDISH CHANDRA SINHA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t23\/04\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nB.P. JEEVAN REDDY, K.T. THOMAS\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nB.P. JEEVAN REDDY.J.\n<\/p>\n
     These appeals are preferred against the Judgment of the
\nCalcutta High  Court answering\tthe three questions referred
\nto it under Section 256(1)<\/a> of the Income-Tax Act against the
\nassessee and  in favour\t of the\t Revenue the three questions
\nare:\n<\/p>\n
     “1. Whether,  on the  facts and  in
\n     the circumstances\tof the\tTribunal
\n     was correct  in law in holding that
\n     the return\t of income  furnished by
\n     the  assesses   by\t virtue\t of  the
\n     provisions contained in sub-section
\n     (4) of  Section 139<\/a>  of the  Income
\n     Tax  Act,\t 1961  beyond  the  time
\n     allowed under  sub-section\t (1)  or
\n     sub-section   (2)\t of   the   said
\n     section, could  not be construed as
\n     a return  furnished under either of
\n     the later\tsub-section and\t in that
\n     view holding that view holding that
\n     the assesses  was not  entitled  to
\n     file the  revised return under sub-
\n     section (5)  of Section  139<\/a> of the
\n     Income Tax act, 1961?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.\t  Whether, on  the facts  and in
\n     the circumstances\tof the case, the
\n     assessment made  by the  Income Tax
\n     Officer for  the  assessment  years
\n     1964-65 and  1965-66  were\t section
\n     the  time\t limit\t prescribed   in
\n     section 153(1)<\/a>  (b) of  Income  Tax
\n     Act<\/a>, 1961?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3\t  Whether, on  the facts  and in
\n     the circumstances\tof the case, the
\n     tribunal  was  correct  in\t law  in
\n     holding  that  the\t cases\tfor  the
\n     assessment years  1964-65 and 1965-
\n     66 were  such  as\t`failing  within
\n     clause (c)\t of sub-section\t (1)  of
\n     section 271<\/a>?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     While Question No.1 was referred at the instance of the
\nRevenue, Questions  2 and 3 were referred at the instance of
\nthe assessee.  The two assessment years concerned herein are
\n1964-65 and 1965-66.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  assessment year  1964-65, the assessee did not
\nfurnish a return within the period prescribed by sub-section
\n(1) of\tSection 139<\/a>.  No notice\t under\tsub-section  (2)  of
\nSection 139<\/a>  was served\t upon him.  The assessee submitted a
\nreturn or  August 13,  1964 disclosing\ta  total  income  of
\nRs.42,131\/-. This  return, it  is not  in dispute, was filed
\nunder, and  taking advantage  of the provision contained in,
\nsub-section (4) of Section 139<\/a>. On January 18, 1969 he filed
\na revised  return disclosing  a total income of Rs.40,388\/-.
\nThe assessee also disclosed in this revised return a capital
\nloss of\t Rs.1,60,672\/- on  the sale  of a  plot of land. The
\nIncome Tax  Officer did\t not complete  the assessment within
\nfour years  of the  expiry of  the assessment  year  1964-65
\ni.e., on  or before  31.3.1969. He made the assessment order
\non January  15,1970. He\t also initiated\t penalty proceedings
\nunder Section  271(1)(c)<\/a> and referred the same to Inspecting
\nAssistant Commissioner\tas required  by law in force at that
\ntime.\n<\/p>\n
     In respect\t of the\t assessment Year  1965-66 also,\t the
\nassessee did  not file a return within the period prescribed
\nby Section  139(2)<\/a> was\tserved upon  him. He  filed a return
\nunder Section  139(4)<\/a> on  December 17,\t1965  disclosing  an
\nincome of  Rs.3,76,628\/- which\tincluded a  capital gain  of
\nRs.3,52,420\/-. On July 17, 1969 the assessee filed a revised
\nreturn showing\tthe total   income  at\tRs.2,50,719\/-.\tThis
\nfigure was  arrived at after reducing the capital gains form
\nRs.2,52,420\/-  (as   disclosed\tin   original\treturn)\t  to
\nRs.2,52,119\/- The  income Tax Officer deed not completes the
\nassessment before  the expiry  of four years form the end of
\nthe assessment\tyear 1965-66  i.e., on or before 31st March,
\n1970. He  made the assessment order only on July 6, 1970. In
\nthis year  too, the  Income Tax\t Officer  initiated  penalty
\nproceedings and\t referred the  same to Inspecting Assistant`
\nCommissioner.\n<\/p>\n
     Against the orders of assessment in respect of both the
\nassessment Commissioner.  In these  appeals he\tdisputed the
\nvary validity  of the  assessment orders  on the ground that
\nthey have  been made  beyond the  prescribed period  of four
\nyears. He  submitted that  the revised\treturns filed by him
\ninadmissible in\t law and therefore could not serve to extend
\nthe period for marking the assessment as provided by Section
\n153<\/a> (1)\t (c). He  also disputed\t the correctness  of various
\nadditions made\tby the\tIncome Tax  Officer.  The  Appellate
\nAssistant Commissioner\tallowed the  appeals on\t the  ground
\nthat the  assessment or\t orders having\tbeen made  beyond of
\nfour years  prescribed by  Section 153(1)(a)(i)<\/a> (as in force
\nat the\trelevant time),\t they are  bed in  law. He held that
\ninasmuch as  the returns  in both  the assessment years ware
\nfiled under Section 139<\/a> (4), no revised that sub-section (5)
\nof Section  139<\/a> permits\t a revised  return to  be filed only
\nwhere the  return is  filed under  sub-section (1)  or\tsub-
\nsection (2)  of Section\t 139<\/a> but  not where  the returns  is
\nfiled under  sub-section (4) of Section 139<\/a>. In this view of
\nthe matter,  the Appellate  Assistant Commissioner held, the
\nIncome Tax  Officer cannot  claim the  benefit\tof  extended
\nprovided by clause (c) of subsection (1) of Section 153<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
     The Revenue  challenged the  decision of  the Appellate
\nAssistant commissioner\tbefore the  Tribunal.  The  Tribunal
\nagreed with  the Appellate  Assistant Commissioner  that  no
\nrevised return can be filed by an assesses who has field the
\nreturn under  Section 139(4)<\/a>  and that,\t therefore, the\t so-
\ncalled revised\treturns filed by the assesses were not valid
\nin law . The Tribunal, however, allowed the appeals filed by
\nthe Revenue  on the  ground the\t  assessment  orders must be
\nheld to\t have been made within the time prescribed by clause\n<\/p>\n
(b) of\tsub-section (1)\t of Section 153<\/a>. in other words, the
\nTribunal was of the opinion that since their was prima facie
\ncase for  initiating action  under  Section  271(1)(c)<\/a>,\t the
\nassessment order  could have  been made\t within a  period of
\neight years from the end of the relevant assessment year, as
\nprovided by  clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 153<\/a>, as
\nstood at the relevant time.\n<\/p>\n
     At the  request of\t Revenue and the assessee, as stated
\nabove, three  questions were  referred by the Tribunal under
\nSection 256<\/a> (1). The High Court discussed the legal position
\nat length  and held  that even in the case of a return filed
\nunder Section  139<\/a> (4),\t a revised  return is permissible in
\nlaw. Accordingly, the High Court held, the assessment orders
\nmade must  be deemed  to have been made within the period of
\nlimitation provided  by Section\t 153<\/a> (1)(c).  The High Court
\nalso held that the Tribunal was right in holding that in the
\nfacts and  circumstances of  the case,\tthe larger period of
\neight years  provided by  clause (b)  of sub-section  (1) of
\nSection 153<\/a> was also attracted in this case and that on this
\ncount also,  the assessment orders must be held to have been
\nmade within the period of limitation prescribed by the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Ashok\tSen,  learned  for  the\t assessee  seeks  to
\ncanvass the correctness of the view taken by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t would\tbe  appropriate\t to  set  out  the  relevant
\nprovisions of  the Act as obtaining at the relevant time for
\na proper  appreciation of the questions arising herein. Sub-
\nsections (1), (2), (4) and (5) of Section 139<\/a> read thus:\n<\/p>\n
     “139. Return  of income.- (1) Every
\n     persons, if his total income or the
\n     total income of any other person in
\n     respect of\t which he  is assessable
\n     under this\t Act during the previous
\n     year exceeded  the\t maximum  amount
\n     which is  not chargeable to income-
\n     tax shall\tfurnish a  return of his
\n     income or\tthe income of such other
\n     person during  the previous year in
\n     the prescribed form and verified in
\n     the prescribed  manner and\t setting
\n     forth such other particulars as may
\n     be prescribed –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)  in the  case of  every  person
\n     whose total  income, or  the  total
\n     income  of\t  any  other  person  in
\n     respect of\t which he  is assessable
\n     under this Act, includes any income
\n     from business or profession, before
\n     the expiry\t of six\t months from the
\n     end of  the previous  year or where
\n     there is  more  than  one\tprevious
\n     year, from\t the end of the previous
\n     year which\t expired last before the
\n     commencement  of\tthe   assessment
\n     year, or  before the  30th\t day  of
\n     June  of\tthe   assessment   year,
\n     whichever is later;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  in the  case\tof  every  other
\n     person, before the 30th day of June
\n     of the assessment year)
\n     (proviso omitted as unnecessary).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2)  In the case of any person who,
\n     in\t  the\t Income-tax    Officer’s
\n     opinion, is  assessable under  this
\n     Act,  whether   on\t his  own  total
\n     income or\ton the\ttotal income  of
\n     any   other   person   during   the
\n     previous\tyear,\tthe   Income-tax
\n     Officer may,  before the end of the
\n     relevant assessment  year, serve  a
\n     notice upon  him requiring\t him  to
\n     furnish, within  thirty  days  from
\n     the date  of service of the notice,
\n     a\treturn\tof  his\t income\t or  the
\n     income or\tsuch other person during
\n     the   previous    year,   in    the
\n     prescribed form and verified in the
\n     prescribed manner and setting forth
\n     such other\t particulars as\t may  be
\n     prescribed :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (Proviso omitted as unnecessary).
\n     [4(a)  Any\t  person  who\thas  not
\n     furnished a  return within the time
\n     allowed to\t him  under  sub-section
\n     (1) or  sub-section (2)  may before
\n     the assessment  is made furnish the
\n     return for any previous year at any
\n     time before  the end  of the period
\n     specified in  clause (b),\tand  the
\n     provisions of  clause (iii)  of the
\n     proviso to\t sub-section  (1)  shall
\n     apply in every such case. [Subs. by
\n     Finance Act<\/a>  No. 19 of 1968 (w.e.f.
\n     1.4.1968)].\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  The\tperiod\treferred  to  in
\n     clause (a) shall be-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i) where\tthe return  relates to a
\n     previous  year   relevant\tto   any
\n     assessment year  commencing  on  or
\n     before the\t 1st day of April, 1967,
\n     four years\t from the  end\tof  such
\n     assessment year;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) where\t the return relates to a
\n     previous  year   relevant\tto   the
\n     assessment year  commencing on  the
\n     1st day of April, 1968, three years
\n     from  the\tend  of\t the  assessment
\n     year;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii) where the return relates to a
\n     previous year relevant to any other
\n     assessment year, two years from the
\n     end of such assessment years.]
\n     (5)  If any person having furnished
\n     a return  under sub-section  (1) or
\n     sub-section  (2),\t discovers   any
\n     omission  or  any\twrong  statement
\n     therein, he  may furnish  a revised
\n     return  at\t  any  time  before  the
\n     assessment is made.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Sub-section (1) of Section 153<\/a>, which alone is relevant
\nfor our purposes read thus:\n<\/p>\n
     “153.     Time-limit for completion
\n     of assessments  and re-assessments.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     – (1)  No order of assessment shall
\n     be\t made\tunder  Section\t 143<\/a>  or
\n     Section 144<\/a> at any time after –
\n     [(a) the expiry of –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i)  four years from the end of the
\n     assessment year in which the income
\n     was first\tassessable,  where  such
\n     assessment year  is  an  assessment
\n     year commencing  on or  before  the
\n     1st day of April, 1967;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) three years  from the\t end  of
\n     the assessment  year in  which  the
\n     income was\t first assessable, where
\n     such   assessment\t year\tis   the
\n     assessment year  commencing on  the
\n     1st day of April, 1968;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii) two years from the end of the
\n     assessment year in which the income
\n     was first\tassessable,  where  such
\n     assessment year  is  an  assessment
\n     year commencing on or after the 1st
\n     day of  April, 1969;  or] [Subs. by
\n     Finance\tAct<\/a>,\t 1968\t (w.e.f.
\n     1.4.1969)].<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  the expiry of eight years from
\n     the end  of the  assessment year in
\n     which   the    income   was   first
\n     assessable,  in   a  case\t falling
\n     within clause  (c)\t of  sub-section
\n     (1) of Section 271<\/a>; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  the expiry  of one  year  from
\n     the date of the filing of return or
\n     a revised\treturn under sub-section
\n     (4) or  sub-section (5)  of Section
\n     139<\/a>,
\n     whichever is latest.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ——————–
\n     Section 271<\/a> (1) (c) ran thus:
\n     “271. Failure  to furnish\treturns,
\n     comply with notices, concealment of
\n     income. etc.  – (1)  If the Income-
\n     tax  Officer   or\t the   Appellate
\n     Assistant\t Commissioner\tin   the
\n     course  of\t any  proceedings  under
\n     this Act,\tis  satisfied  that  any
\n     person –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (clause  (a)  and\t(b)  omitted  as
\n     unnecessary)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c) has  concealed the  particulars
\n     of his  income or [* * *] (The word
\n     “deliberately” omitted  by\t Finance
\n     Act<\/a>,   1964    (w.e.f.   1.4.1964)]
\n     furnished inaccurate particulars of
\n     such income,
\n     he\t may  direct  that  such  person
\n     shall pay by way of penalty,-
\n     ……………………………..<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     [(iii) in\tthe cases referred to in
\n     clause (c),  in addition to any tax
\n     payable by\t him, a\t sum which shall
\n     not be  less than,\t but which shall
\n     not exceed twice, the amount of the
\n     income  in\t respect  of  which  the
\n     particulars have  been concealed or
\n     inaccurate\t particulars  have  been
\n     furnished.”]
\n     The first\tquestion is  whether a\tperson who  files  a
\nreturn under  Section 139(1)<\/a>  is entitled  to file a revised
\nreturn before  the assessment  is made.\t We think  not.\t The
\nfurnishing of  a revised  return is  provided by sub-section
\n(5) of\tSection 139<\/a>.  According\t to  this  sub-section\t“any
\nperson having  furnished a  return under  sub-section (1) or
\nsub-section (2)”  may furnish  a revised  return at any time
\nbefore the  assessment is  made if he discovers any omission
\nor any wrong statement in the original return. The very fact
\nthat this  right is given to a person who has filed a return
\nunder sub-section  (1) or  sub-section (2)  of\tSection\t 139<\/a>
\nmeans by  necessary implication\t that such a right is denied
\nto a  person who files the return under Section 139<\/a> (4). The
\nHigh Court  has, however,  taken the other view relying upon
\nthe language  of clause\t (c) of\t sub-section (1)  of Section\n<\/p>\n
153. Sub-section  (1) of  Section 153<\/a>  prescribes  the\ttime
\nlimits for  completing the  assessment. In the present case,
\nit is  not in  dispute, the  period allowed  for making\t the
\nassessment is  four years  from\t the  end  of  the  relevant
\nassessment year as provided by Section 153(1)(a)(i)<\/a>. Section
\n153<\/a> (1)(c)  provides an\t alternate period  of limitation. It
\nsays that  if the  assessment is  made before “the expiry of
\none year  from the date of the filing of return or a revised
\nreturn under  sub-section (4)  or sub-section (5) of Section
\n139<\/a>” it\t would yet  be within limitation notwithstanding the
\nfact that  it may be barred under other provisions contained
\nin sub-section\t(1) of Section 153<\/a>. The High Court is or the
\nopinion that  language employed\t in clause  (c)\t of  Section
\n153(1)<\/a> contemplates the filing of a revised return even in a
\ncase where  original return  is filed under sub-section (4).
\nWe find\t it difficult  to agree.  Clause (c) employ both the
\nexpressions return and revised return and refers to both the
\nsub-sections (4)  and (5) of Section 139<\/a>. Reasonably read it
\nmeans the return filed under sub-section (4) and the revised
\nreturn file  under sub-section\t(5) of Section 139<\/a>. It would
\nnot be\treasonable to construe the said clause as indirectly
\nconferring a  right which  is not conferred directly by sub-
\nsection (5)  of Section\t 139<\/a>. The  High Court  has  drawn  a
\ndistinction between a revised return and a rectified return.
\nMay be,\t there is  a distinction.  We are not concerned here
\nwith a\trectified return  but what  was avowedly  a  revised
\nreturn and  which was  in truth\t a new\treturn. We  find  it
\nequally difficult to agree with the rest of the reasoning of
\nthe High  Court on  this aspect.  We are,  therefore, of the
\nopinion that  no revised  return can  be  filed\t under\tsub-
\nsection (5)  of Section\t  139<\/a>  in a case where the return is
\nfiled under  Section 139<\/a>  (4). Once  this is  so the revised
\nreturns filed  by the  assessee for both the said assessment
\nyears were  not valid in law and could not have been treated
\nand acted  upon as  revised  returns  contemplated  by\tsub-
\nsection (5)  of Section\t 139<\/a>  –\t which\tmeans  that  Section
\n153(1)(c)<\/a> was not attracted in this case. Indeed this is the
\nview taken  by all  the High Courts as conceded by Mr. Ashok
\nSen. See  O. P.\t Malhotra v. Commissioner of Income Tax<\/a> (129
\nI.T.R. 379  Delhi),  Dr.  S.B.Bhargava\tv.  Commissioner  of
\nIncome Tax<\/a> (136 I.T.R. 559 All), Vimal Chand v. Commissioner
\nof Income  Tax<\/a> (155  I.T.R. 593-Raj.)  and Eapen  Joseph  v.
\nCommissioner of\t Income Tax<\/a>  (168 I.T.R.  26 – Kerala). Only
\nthe Calcutta  High Court  has taken  the contrary  view with
\nwhich we are unable to agree.\n<\/p>\n
     The understanding\tof clause  (b) of sub-section (1) of
\nSection 153<\/a>,   however,\t appears  to  be  a  difficult\tone,
\nbecause of  the ambiguous language employed therein. It says
\nthat “in a case falling within clause (c) of sub-section (1)
\nof  Section   271<\/a>“,  the  period  for  making  an  order  of
\nassessment is  eight years. Now what do the words “in a case
\nfalling within clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 271<\/a>”
\nmean? Different High Courts have spoken in different voices.
\nBroadly speaking there are two streams of thought. The first
\none is\tthis: within  the period  of four years (or whatever
\nthe applicable period of limitation), the Income Tax Officer
\nmust either initiate proceedings under Section 271<\/a> (1)(c) or
\nrecord his  opinion that  it is a case falling under Section
\n271(1)(c)<\/a>; unless  any such step is taken, it cannot be said
\nthat it\t is a  case falling under Section 271(1)(c)<\/a>; if this
\nsafeguard is  not provided,  the Income Tax Officer would be
\narmed with  a dangerous\t weapon and the assessee would be at
\nhis mercy;  the Damocle’s  sword would\tbe kept hanging over
\nthe head of the assessee all the time. (This was said in the
\ncontext of  the provisions  of 1922  Act where,\t in  such  a
\nsituation, no  period  of  limitation  was  prescribed).  An
\nIncome Tax  Officer –  the argument  runs further  – who  is
\nremiss in  performance of  his duties  and does\t not make an
\norder of assessment within the period prescribed, would make
\nan assessment thereafter and start proceedings under Section
\n271(1)(c)<\/a> to  justify the  making of the order of assessment
\nbeyond the  prescribed period.\tAs against  this, the second
\nstream of  thought runs thus: the power conferred by Section
\n153<\/a> (1)(b)  is a  power conceived  in the interest of public
\nand is\tdesigned  to  curb  concealment\t of  income  by\t the
\nassesses;  while   construing  the   said   provision,\t the
\npossibility of\tabuse or  misuse should\t not be\t the guiding
\nconsideration; the  law presumes,  and the  Court must\talso
\npresume that  every power  would  be  used  fairly  and\t for
\nadvancing the purposes which the provision seeks to achieve.
\nThere are  not words  in the  clause, –\t this argument\truns
\nfurther –  which  indicate  by\tnecessary  implication\tthat
\neither the  proceedings under  section\t27(1)(c)<\/a>  should  be
\ninitiated or that some order should be passed or record made
\nby the Income Tax Officer within the period of four years to
\nindicate that  it is a case falling under Section 271(1)(c)<\/a>;
\nimposing such  a  requirement  would  in  effect  amount  to
\namending the  clause and reading words into it which are not
\nthere; if  in a\t given case,  the Income Tax Officer invokes
\nthe said  provision without  justification, the\t assessee is
\nnot without  a remedy; the Act provides adequate remedies by
\nway of\tappeals, revisions  and\t reference  to\trectify\t any
\nmisuse of  abuse of  powers by the Income Tax Officer; if an
\nIncome Tax  Officer makes  an  assessment  order  after\t the
\nexpiry of  four years  and within  eight years\trelying upon
\nSection\t 271(1)(c)<\/a>   and  if  it  is  found  by\t the  higher
\nauthorities that  is was  not a\t case falling within Section
\n271(1)(c)<\/a>, it  is obvious,  the assessment order will be set
\naside, besides\tquashing the  penalty  proceedings.  It\t is,
\ntherefore, not\tnecessary, –  it is argues – that within the
\nperiod of  four years  (or the\tother applicable  period  of
\nlimitation as  the case\t may be),  the\tIncome\tTax  Officer
\nshould issue a notice or pass an order or make a record that
\nit is  a case  falling within Section 271(1)(c)<\/a> and that the
\nvalidity of  the assessment  order  should  be\tjudged\twith
\nreference to the date on which the assessment order is made.\n<\/p>\n
     We find  that both the streams of thought aforesaid are
\nequally attractive.  Each has  an appeal of its own. We are,
\nhowever, relieved  or making  a choice in the matter because
\nof the\tdecision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax
\nv. Suraj  Pal Singh<\/a> [(1991) 68 I.T.R. 297]. It was an appeal
\nagainst\t the   decision\t of  the  Allahabad  High  Court  in
\nCommissioner of\t Income Tax  v. Surajpal  Singh<\/a> [(1977)\t 108
\nI.T.R. 746]. The Allahabad High Court discussed this problem
\nat length  (at pages  752 and  753), but  ultimately did not
\nexpress any  final opinion  for the  reason that  it was not
\nnecessary to  do so  in view  of the  facts of\tan  findings
\nrecorded in  that case.\t We do not think it necessary to set
\nout the entire reasoning of the High Court. It is sufficient
\nto state  that it  espouses  the  first\t stream\t of  thought
\nmentioned above.  On appeal,  this Court purported to affirm
\nthe said line of thought which is evident from the following
\nobservations  in   the\tjudgment,   which,  in\t effect,  is
\npractically the whole of the judgment:\n<\/p>\n
     “The Income-tax  Appellate Tribunal
\n     referred the  following question to
\n     the High Court :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ‘Whether, on  the facts  and in the
\n     circumstances  of\t the  case,  the
\n     Tribunal was  right in holding that
\n     the assessment  made by the Income-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     tax   Officer    was   barred    by
\n     limitation.’
\n     The  High\t Court,\t on  a\tdetailed
\n     consideration  of\t the  facts  and
\n     circumstances  of\tthe  case,  held
\n     that  the\tTribunal  was  right  in
\n     holding that  the case  was not one
\n     to which  the provisions of section
\n     271(1)(c)<\/a> of  the\tIncome-tax  Act,
\n     1961,  corresponding   to\t section
\n     28(1)(c)<\/a>  of   the\t old  Act  apply
\n     inasmuch as  the Income-tax Officer
\n     had not  recorded\tany  finding  or
\n     brought  any   material  on  record
\n     within a  period of 4 years to show
\n     that it  was a case of concealment.
\n     The  High\tCourt  agreed  with  the
\n     findings recorded\tby the\tTribunal
\n     that  the\tassessment  was\t clearly
\n     time-barred.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     After hearing  learned counsel  for
\n     the appellant,  we do  not find any
\n     good reason  to  take  a  different
\n     view.  The\t appeal\t fails\tand  is,
\n     accordingly, dismissed.  There will
\n     be no order as to costs.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Since this Court has already taken one view and because
\nthe said  view is  one of  the two  possible  views  of\t the
\nmatter, we  follow the same and accordingly uphold the first
\nstream of thought mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
     Applying the  above understanding of Section 153(1)(b)<\/a>,
\nit must\t be held  in this case that the assessment is barred
\nby time. Admittedly the Income Tax Officer had not initiated
\nthe providing  under Section  271(1)(c)<\/a> within\ta period  of
\nfour years  prescribed by  Section  153(1)(a)(i)<\/a>  (which  is
\napplicable provision  herein) nor  had be  made any order or
\nrecord or  a note in the relevant file indicating that it is
\na case falling under Section 271(1)(c)<\/a>. [(f he made any such
\norder of  note in  the file  as aforesaid,  he\tshould\thave
\ncommunicated  it   to  the   assessee\t–   the\t  expression
\n“communicated” being  understood as  explained by this Court
\nin State  of Punjab  v. Khemi Ram<\/a> [1970 (2) S.C.R. 657].* In
\nsuch a\tsituation  it  must  be\t held  that  the  orders  of
\nassessment  in\t respect  of   both  the  assessment  orders
\nconcerned herein  are barred  by time and must be held to be
\ninvalid in law.\n<\/p>\n
     For  the\tabove  reasons,\t the  appeals  are  allowed.
\nQuestion No.  1 is  answered in the affirmative holding that
\nin case\t of a  return filed under sub-section (4) of Section
\n139<\/a>, a\trevised return\tcontemplated by\t sub-section (5)  of
\nSection 139<\/a>  cannot be\tfiled. Question No. 2 is answered in
\nthe negative.  It is held that the orders of assessment made
\nin respect  of the  said two assessment years are barred and
\nare not saved by Section\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————
\n* Which\t means that  it is enough if it is put in the course
\nof transmission before the expiry of the relevant period; it
\nis not\tnecessary that\tit should  also be  received by\t the
\nassessee or his representative within the said period.
\n153(1)(b).  Question   No.  3  is  really  consequential  to
\nQuestion No.  1. Once  we hold that no revised returns could
\nbe filed  by the assessee for the said two assessment years,
\nthe assessments\t made beyond  the prescribed  period of four
\nyears (but  within five\t years) are  not  saved\t by  Section
\n153(1)(c)<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
     There shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West … on 23 April, 1996 Author: B J Reddy.J. Bench: B.P. Jeevan Reddy, K.T. Thomas PETITIONER: KUMAR JAGDISH CHANDRA SINHA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/04\/1996 BENCH: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, K.T. THOMAS […]<\/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-250209","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 23 April, 1996 - 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\/kumar-jagdish-chandra-sinha-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-23-april-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 23 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-jagdish-chandra-sinha-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-23-april-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-30T05:29:25+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumar-jagdish-chandra-sinha-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-23-april-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumar-jagdish-chandra-sinha-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-23-april-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West … on 23 April, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-30T05:29:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumar-jagdish-chandra-sinha-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-23-april-1996\"},\"wordCount\":3874,\"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\\\/kumar-jagdish-chandra-sinha-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-23-april-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumar-jagdish-chandra-sinha-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-23-april-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumar-jagdish-chandra-sinha-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-23-april-1996\",\"name\":\"Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 23 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-30T05:29:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumar-jagdish-chandra-sinha-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-23-april-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumar-jagdish-chandra-sinha-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-23-april-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumar-jagdish-chandra-sinha-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-23-april-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West … on 23 April, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 23 April, 1996 - 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\/kumar-jagdish-chandra-sinha-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-23-april-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 23 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-jagdish-chandra-sinha-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-23-april-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-30T05:29:25+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-jagdish-chandra-sinha-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-23-april-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-jagdish-chandra-sinha-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-23-april-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West … on 23 April, 1996","datePublished":"1996-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-30T05:29:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-jagdish-chandra-sinha-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-23-april-1996"},"wordCount":3874,"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\/kumar-jagdish-chandra-sinha-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-23-april-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-jagdish-chandra-sinha-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-23-april-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-jagdish-chandra-sinha-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-23-april-1996","name":"Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 23 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-30T05:29:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-jagdish-chandra-sinha-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-23-april-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-jagdish-chandra-sinha-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-23-april-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-jagdish-chandra-sinha-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-23-april-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West … on 23 April, 1996"}]},{"@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\/250209","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=250209"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250209\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=250209"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=250209"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=250209"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}