{"id":256963,"date":"2010-04-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-vishwakarma-proprietor-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-april-2010"},"modified":"2017-02-17T21:40:00","modified_gmt":"2017-02-17T16:10:00","slug":"satish-vishwakarma-proprietor-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-vishwakarma-proprietor-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Satish Vishwakarma Proprietor … vs Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax … on 13 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Satish Vishwakarma Proprietor … vs Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax … on 13 April, 2010<\/div>\n
                                1\n\n\n\n\n  HIGH COURT OF MADAHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR\n                    W.P.No.8173\/2009\n                   Satish Vishwakarma\n                          Vs.\n Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1),\n                   Bhopal and another\n                           &\n                    W.P.No.8329\/2009\n                   Satish Vishwakarma\n                          Vs.\n Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1),\n                   Bhopal and another\n_______________________________________________\nFor petitioners:\nShri     H.S.Shrivastava,Sr.Advocate        with      Shri\nAbhijit Shrivastava, Advocate.\n\n\nFor respondents:\nShri Sanjay Lal, Advocate.\n_______________________________________________\n       DB:   Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra&\n             Hon'ble Smt. Justice S.Shrivastava\n       Order passed on    :13\/04\/2010\n\n\n        Whether approved for reporting :Yes\/No.\n                          O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
       As Per:- ARUN MISHRA,J.\n<\/p>\n
        These petitions    pertain    to   validity    of<\/p>\n
 the action initiated under Section 148 of the
\n                                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
Income Tax Act<\/a> for the assessment year 2004-<\/p>\n
05 and 2005-06.\n<\/p>\n
2.    Question        involved       is    same       in    both    the<\/p>\n
petitions.         The facts are being referred to<\/p>\n
from WP No.8173\/2009.                    The petitioner is a<\/p>\n
builder      and       colonizer.           Petitioner           filed<\/p>\n
return    for    the       assessment          year    2004-05       on<\/p>\n
30.10.2004.           His case was subjected to the<\/p>\n
scrutiny.       Petitioner       attended            and    produced<\/p>\n
the     books    of        account       and     other      relevant<\/p>\n
documents       in    connection          with       the   claim     of<\/p>\n
deduction under Section 80-IB<\/a> of the Income<\/p>\n
Tax   Act      (hereinafter          referred         to    as     “the<\/p>\n
Act”).    All        the    necessary          information         with<\/p>\n
respect to grant of exemption under Section<\/p>\n
80-IB<\/a>    was    submitted.          Exemption         was    allowed<\/p>\n
under     Section           80-IB<\/a>         vide       order       dated<\/p>\n
4.12.2006. Petitioner                submitted that           during<\/p>\n
the course of assessment proceedings for the<\/p>\n
assessment year 2006-07, the respondent no.1<\/p>\n
had   noticed         that    two     of       the    houses       sold<\/p>\n
during the relevant accounting year covered<\/p>\n
an    area      exceeding       1500        sq.ft.,hence            the<\/p>\n
provisions of exemption under Section 80-IB<\/a>
\n                                  3<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n
were not applicable. No definite information<\/p>\n
was gathered by the respondents with respect<\/p>\n
to the area being more than 1500 sq.ft.Thus,<\/p>\n
reassessment        proceedings            initiated     under<\/p>\n
Section 148<\/a> of the Act by serving notice are<\/p>\n
without jurisdiction.          Petitioner filed reply<\/p>\n
to the notice under Section 148<\/a> of the Act<\/p>\n
and   raised      preliminary         objections.           The<\/p>\n
preliminary objections have been rejected and<\/p>\n
the   assessing       officer        has     evinced     clear<\/p>\n
intention    to     complete         the    assessment      and<\/p>\n
assess the income as proposed. Petitioner has<\/p>\n
submitted      that       reassessment          proceedings<\/p>\n
initiated    are    without      jurisdiction.         It    is<\/p>\n
only on reason to          believe that          any income<\/p>\n
chargeable     to   tax    has       escaped    assessment,<\/p>\n
then only the provisions of Section 147<\/a>\/148<\/a><\/p>\n
of the Act could have been invoked.                      There<\/p>\n
was   no   definite    information           collected    with<\/p>\n
respect to the house, hence, there could not<\/p>\n
have been any reopening of the assessment.<\/p>\n
The assessing officer had already assessed to<\/p>\n
tax the income from housing having area more<\/p>\n
than 1500 sq.ft. Provision of Section 80-IB<\/a>
\n                                        4<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n
of the Act has been misunderstood. Proceeding<\/p>\n
could     not       have       been     initiated             merely       on<\/p>\n
suspicion.         There        has     to     be       existence          of<\/p>\n
reason to believe that any income chargeable<\/p>\n
to     tax    has        escaped       assessment             for     which<\/p>\n
definite information is necessary.<\/p>\n
3.     Return has been filed in WP No.8329\/09<\/p>\n
which has been adopted                      in WP       8173\/09. The<\/p>\n
respondents              have         contended               that         in<\/p>\n
proceedings              under        Section            143(3)<\/a>           for<\/p>\n
assessment         year       2006-07,       it     is       found       that<\/p>\n
assessee           is        not      meeting           the         various<\/p>\n
requirements            of    section       80-IB<\/a>        (10)       of    the<\/p>\n
Act.    Thus,       assessing          officer          reopened          the<\/p>\n
case    under           Section       147<\/a>    of        the     Act.      For<\/p>\n
attracting Section 80-IB<\/a> (10) of the Act the<\/p>\n
construction             should        be     completed              before<\/p>\n
31.03.2008. The date of completion is to be<\/p>\n
taken        as    the        date     on     which           completion<\/p>\n
certificate             was        issued         by         the      local<\/p>\n
authority.          Assessee          did     not        receive         any<\/p>\n
completion certificate before 31.03.08.                                   In<\/p>\n
respect       of    assessment          year      2006-07           it    has<\/p>\n
been noted that the assessee is not selling
\n                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
any   constructed         property        to        its    customers<\/p>\n
whereas     all     the      sums       received          from    the<\/p>\n
customers        are      credited         as         construction<\/p>\n
receipts. Registry for the land only is made.<\/p>\n
The assessee merely acknowledges construction<\/p>\n
receipts in its books of account for which no<\/p>\n
registry is made. It was also found during<\/p>\n
the test check measurement the built up area<\/p>\n
of some of the houses as mentioned in Plot<\/p>\n
B\/7 Shankracharya Homes was more than 1500<\/p>\n
sq.ft.as     well       as    on        Plot    No.B\/8.          Thus,<\/p>\n
petitioner was not entitled for the benefit<\/p>\n
of    Section      80-IB      of        the         Act.Assessment<\/p>\n
officer has reason to believe that deduction<\/p>\n
claimed under Section 80-IB<\/a> of the Act for<\/p>\n
the   assessment        years       were        not       available,<\/p>\n
thus, the assessment has been rightly opened<\/p>\n
under Section 147<\/a> of the Act. The power to<\/p>\n
reopen assessment is much wider and can be<\/p>\n
exercised        even     after          the        assessee      has<\/p>\n
disclosed fully and truly all the material<\/p>\n
facts.     The only condition for action under<\/p>\n
Section     147<\/a>    is     that      the        AO     should     have<\/p>\n
reasons     to    believe        that         the     income      has
\n                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
escaped assessment. Notice was in terms of<\/p>\n
explanation 2(b) of Section 147<\/a> of the Act.<\/p>\n
4.    Shri      H.S.Shrivastava,         learned     senior<\/p>\n
counsel         appearing       with      Shri      Abhijit<\/p>\n
Shrivastava,for petitioner has submitted that<\/p>\n
merely the change of opinion is not enough,<\/p>\n
there     has    to    be    existence     of    reason    to<\/p>\n
believe      before        reopening    the     assessment.<\/p>\n
Learned senior counsel has further submitted<\/p>\n
that an application was filed objecting as<\/p>\n
to correctness of the measurement. When this<\/p>\n
fact was disputed, fact ought to have been<\/p>\n
ascertained before reopening the assessment.<\/p>\n
He has relied upon decision of Apex Court in<\/p>\n
Commissioner          of    Income     Tax,     Delhi     vs.<\/p>\n
Kelvinator of India Ltd<\/a>. (2010) 187 Taxman<\/p>\n
312     (SC),     decisions       of     this    Court     in<\/p>\n
Commissioner          of    Income     Tax,     Bhopal    vs.<\/p>\n
S.R.Construction, Bhopal 2002 (2) MPLJ 81, in<\/p>\n
The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Pithampur<\/p>\n
Steels (P) Ltd<\/a>.            (2008) 11 ITJ 696 (MP) and<\/p>\n
unreported        decision       in      ITR     No.33\/1999<\/p>\n
(Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal vs.                   M\/s
\n                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
A.Yusuf Ali and Brothers, Pipariya, Itarsi)<\/p>\n
decided on 24.9.2007.\n<\/p>\n
5.     Shri     Sanjay          Lal,           learned        counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for Revenue has supported issuance<\/p>\n
of notice for reopening the assessment under<\/p>\n
Section 147<\/a> of the Act.                        He has submitted<\/p>\n
that it is not a case of change of opinion,<\/p>\n
certain       material       facts         have       come    to     the<\/p>\n
knowledge       and     have      been      ascertained            which<\/p>\n
goes    to    indicate       that         income      tax     officers<\/p>\n
have     reason       to    believe            that     income       has<\/p>\n
escaped assessment.\n<\/p>\n
6.     The main question              for      consideration         is<\/p>\n
whether it is merely change of opinion or the<\/p>\n
assessing officer had reason to believe to<\/p>\n
initiate proceedings under Section 148<\/a> of the<\/p>\n
Act. For initiating proceedings under Section<\/p>\n
148<\/a> of the Act it is necessary as provided<\/p>\n
under     Section          148(2)<\/a>         of      the       Act    that<\/p>\n
assessing       officer        must       record        his    reasons<\/p>\n
before        issuing       any       notice          to      make    a<\/p>\n
reassessment. Two conditions must exist; (1)<\/p>\n
that the Income Tax               Officer has               reason to<\/p>\n
believe that income, chargeable to income tax
\n                                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
had been under-assessed; and (2) that he has<\/p>\n
also    reason       to     believe     that       such       “under<\/p>\n
assessment” had occurred by reason of either<\/p>\n
(i) omission or failure on the part of an<\/p>\n
assessee to make a return of his income (ii)<\/p>\n
omission       or    failure       on      the     part       of    an<\/p>\n
assessee    to       disclose      fully      and       truly       all<\/p>\n
material facts necessary for his assessment<\/p>\n
for that year. Existence of these conditions<\/p>\n
is necessary as held by the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co.Ltd. vs.<\/p>\n
The Income Tax Officer AIR 1969 SC 944 and in<\/p>\n
Calcutta    Discount         Co.Ltd.       vs.         Income       Tax<\/p>\n
Officer, Companies            District,I, Calcutta                  and<\/p>\n
another    AIR       1961    SC    372.      The       Apex    Court<\/p>\n
recently in Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi<\/p>\n
vs.     Kelvinator of            India Ltd<\/a>.         (supra)         has<\/p>\n
held    that    one       must    treat      the       concept      of<\/p>\n
“change of opinion” as an in-built test to<\/p>\n
check     abuse       of     power      by       the    Assessing<\/p>\n
Officer. After 1.4.89, Assessing Officer has<\/p>\n
power to reopen, provided there is “tangible<\/p>\n
material”       to    come    to     the     conclusion            that<\/p>\n
there      is        escapement         of        income           from
\n                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
assessment.     Reasons     must    have    a     live   link<\/p>\n
with the formation of the belief. In Income-<\/p>\n
Tax Officer, I Ward, Distt.VI, Calcutta and<\/p>\n
others vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das<\/a> (1976) 103 ITR<\/p>\n
437 the Apex Court has laid down that the<\/p>\n
duty which is cast upon the assessee is to<\/p>\n
make a true and full disclosure of primary<\/p>\n
facts at the time of the original assessment.<\/p>\n
Once he has done that his duty ends. It is<\/p>\n
for    the    Income-tax     officer       to     draw    the<\/p>\n
correct inference from the primary facts.                 It<\/p>\n
is    no   responsibility     of     the     assessee      to<\/p>\n
advise the Income-tax officer with regard to<\/p>\n
the inference which he should draw from the<\/p>\n
primary facts. If an Income-tax officer draws<\/p>\n
an inference which appears subsequently to be<\/p>\n
erroneous, mere change of opinion with regard<\/p>\n
to     that     inference     would         not     justify<\/p>\n
initiation       of       action      for         reopening<\/p>\n
assessment.\n<\/p>\n
      In Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. vs. Income-<\/p>\n
Tax   Officer    and   others<\/a>      (1999)    236    ITR   34<\/p>\n
scope of interference in judicial review came<\/p>\n
for consideration before their Lordship. It
\n                                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
was laid down in determining whether there<\/p>\n
was prima facie some material on the basis of<\/p>\n
which the Department could reopen the case,<\/p>\n
the     sufficiency        or      correctness          of    the<\/p>\n
material is not a thing to be considered at<\/p>\n
this stage.        The case of the Revenue was that<\/p>\n
the assessee was charging to its profit and<\/p>\n
loss account, fiscal duties paid during the<\/p>\n
year as well as labour charges, power, fuel,<\/p>\n
wages,etc. However, while valuing its closing<\/p>\n
stock, the elements of fiscal duty and the<\/p>\n
other    direct      manufacturing         costs       were   not<\/p>\n
included. This resulted in undervaluation of<\/p>\n
inventories        and    understatement          of   profits.<\/p>\n
This information was obtained by the Revenue<\/p>\n
in       a        subsequent           year’s      assessment<\/p>\n
proceedings. The commencement of reassessment<\/p>\n
proceedings        was held to be valid by the Apex<\/p>\n
Court.       In    Calcutta       Discount      Co.Ltd.       vs.<\/p>\n
Income-Tax        Officer,      Companies       District       I,<\/p>\n
Calcutta and another (1961) 41 ITR 191 the<\/p>\n
Apex    Court      laid    down    that     the    Income-tax<\/p>\n
officer who issued the notices under section<\/p>\n
34<\/a> did not have any material before him for
\n                                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
believing that there had been any material<\/p>\n
non-disclosure by reason of which an under-<\/p>\n
assessment had taken place. Thus, he had no<\/p>\n
jurisdiction to issue the notices after the<\/p>\n
expiry      of    four    years    from       the    end    of   the<\/p>\n
assessment years,therefore,                   the Company         was<\/p>\n
entitled to an order directing the Income-tax<\/p>\n
officer not to take any action on the basis<\/p>\n
of     the         notices.        In         A.L.A.Firm          vs.<\/p>\n
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras<\/a> (1991) 2<\/p>\n
SCC 558 the Apex Court has laid down in the<\/p>\n
context      of    income       escaping      assessment         what<\/p>\n
can    be         the     reasons        to     believe,          “in<\/p>\n
consequence of information.” In the context<\/p>\n
of the facts that the law laid down in recent<\/p>\n
decision of court was missed at the time of<\/p>\n
original assessment but came to the knowledge<\/p>\n
of    ITO     subsequently,          it       constitutes         the<\/p>\n
“information”            for    reopening        the       original<\/p>\n
assessment. But mere change of opinion does<\/p>\n
not          constitute             “information”.                 In<\/p>\n
S.Narayanappa             and     others            vs.          The<\/p>\n
Commissioner of Income-tax<\/a> AIR 1967 SC 523<\/p>\n
the Apex Court has considered the question of
\n                                      12<\/span><\/p>\n
reopening         of    the      assessment       under    Section<\/p>\n
34(1)(a)<\/a> of Income Tax Act. With respect to<\/p>\n
“reason to believe” the Apex Court observed<\/p>\n
that belief must be held in good faith, it<\/p>\n
cannot      be        merely      pretence.        Existence     of<\/p>\n
belief is justiciable but not sufficiency of<\/p>\n
grounds for belief.\n<\/p>\n
7.    In the light of principles laid down in<\/p>\n
the aforesaid decisions, coming to the facts<\/p>\n
of the instant case, it is apparent that when<\/p>\n
assessment was being made for the year 2006-<\/p>\n
07, facts came to the knowledge with respect<\/p>\n
to    previous         assessment         years    also.      Actual<\/p>\n
measurement of the houses was conducted and<\/p>\n
it was found that petitioner was not entitled<\/p>\n
for applicability of the exemption provision<\/p>\n
of Section 80-IB<\/a> as certain houses exceeded<\/p>\n
exemption        limit      of    1500     sq.fts.      Petitioner<\/p>\n
filed        an         application             assailing       the<\/p>\n
measurement           two   days    before        the   assessment<\/p>\n
would have become barred by limitation. Thus,<\/p>\n
it    was   not        possible     to     go     for   the   fresh<\/p>\n
measurement, even otherwise first measurement<\/p>\n
was   made       in    presence      of     petitioner.       Apart
\n                                  13<\/span><\/p>\n
from that another ground which has been taken<\/p>\n
for reopening assessment is that petitioner<\/p>\n
is not selling any constructed property to<\/p>\n
its customers        and all the sums received,even<\/p>\n
the     receipts     by    selling          the    land    were<\/p>\n
included in the construction receipts whereas<\/p>\n
registry for the land was only made by the<\/p>\n
petitioner. Thus, the assessment made require<\/p>\n
reopening.      In     our       opinion,          there     was<\/p>\n
existence      of    material         for     formation       of<\/p>\n
requisite reason to believe. It was based on<\/p>\n
cogent reasons mentioned in the notice issued<\/p>\n
under    Section     148<\/a>    of    the       Act.   Thus,     the<\/p>\n
proceedings     initiated        are    not       amenable    to<\/p>\n
judicial review,          it cannot         be said    in the<\/p>\n
facts of the case that it was merely change<\/p>\n
of opinion.\n<\/p>\n
8.    Petitioner’s counsel has also relied upon<\/p>\n
decision of this Court in Pithampur Steels<\/p>\n
(P) Ltd. (supra) in which Division Bench of<\/p>\n
this Court has laid down in the context of<\/p>\n
the fact that sales tax refund not treated as<\/p>\n
income    in    regular      assessment,           there     was<\/p>\n
change of AO, new AO reopened assessment and
\n                               14<\/span><\/p>\n
added    the   amount,   it    was    laid    down    that<\/p>\n
reopening could not have been done on a mere<\/p>\n
change    of      opinion.     Facts     are     totally<\/p>\n
different, it could not be said that there<\/p>\n
was mere change of          opinion in       the instant<\/p>\n
cases.\n<\/p>\n
    In Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal vs.<\/p>\n
S.R.Construction, Bhopal           (supra) this       Court<\/p>\n
quashed    the    notices     of    reopening    of     the<\/p>\n
assessment issued under Section 148<\/a> of the<\/p>\n
Act wherein the assessment was reopened on<\/p>\n
the ground of costs of construction declared<\/p>\n
by the assessee as per his books of accounts<\/p>\n
appeared to be low. It was held by this Court<\/p>\n
that assessment could not have been reopened<\/p>\n
as all material facts were disclosed in the<\/p>\n
return and       there was    no material       with the<\/p>\n
assessing officer for reopening               purpose on<\/p>\n
the ground that value was kept low. In the<\/p>\n
aforesaid context, interference was made.                In<\/p>\n
the instant cases, there was cogent material<\/p>\n
before the assessment officer to issue the<\/p>\n
notice of reopening.\n<\/p>\n
                              15<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
9.    Resultantly, we find the writ petitions<\/p>\n
to be without merits, same deserve dismissal,<\/p>\n
they are hereby dismissed. However, we leave<\/p>\n
the   parties   to    bear   their     own   costs   as<\/p>\n
incurred of the petitions.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n      (Arun Mishra)               (Smt.S.Shrivastava)\n         Judge.                       Judge.\n\n\n\n\nJk.\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court Satish Vishwakarma Proprietor … vs Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax … on 13 April, 2010 1 HIGH COURT OF MADAHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR W.P.No.8173\/2009 Satish Vishwakarma Vs. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Bhopal and another & W.P.No.8329\/2009 Satish Vishwakarma Vs. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Bhopal and another _______________________________________________ […]<\/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":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-256963","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSatish Vishwakarma Proprietor ... vs Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 13 April, 2010 - 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\/satish-vishwakarma-proprietor-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Satish Vishwakarma Proprietor ... vs Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 13 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-vishwakarma-proprietor-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-april-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-17T16:10:00+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-vishwakarma-proprietor-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-vishwakarma-proprietor-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Satish Vishwakarma Proprietor … vs Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax … on 13 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-17T16:10:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-vishwakarma-proprietor-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2183,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-vishwakarma-proprietor-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-vishwakarma-proprietor-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-vishwakarma-proprietor-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Satish Vishwakarma Proprietor ... vs Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 13 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-17T16:10:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-vishwakarma-proprietor-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-vishwakarma-proprietor-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-vishwakarma-proprietor-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Satish Vishwakarma Proprietor … vs Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax … on 13 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Satish Vishwakarma Proprietor ... vs Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 13 April, 2010 - 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\/satish-vishwakarma-proprietor-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Satish Vishwakarma Proprietor ... vs Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 13 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-vishwakarma-proprietor-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-17T16:10:00+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-vishwakarma-proprietor-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-vishwakarma-proprietor-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Satish Vishwakarma Proprietor … vs Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax … on 13 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-17T16:10:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-vishwakarma-proprietor-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-april-2010"},"wordCount":2183,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-vishwakarma-proprietor-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-vishwakarma-proprietor-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-vishwakarma-proprietor-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-april-2010","name":"Satish Vishwakarma Proprietor ... vs Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 13 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-17T16:10:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-vishwakarma-proprietor-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-vishwakarma-proprietor-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-vishwakarma-proprietor-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-13-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Satish Vishwakarma Proprietor … vs Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax … on 13 April, 2010"}]},{"@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\/256963","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=256963"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256963\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=256963"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=256963"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=256963"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}