{"id":262607,"date":"2007-07-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-07-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-alagendran-finance-ltd-on-27-july-2007"},"modified":"2017-06-20T12:29:47","modified_gmt":"2017-06-20T06:59:47","slug":"commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-alagendran-finance-ltd-on-27-july-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-alagendran-finance-ltd-on-27-july-2007","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\/S. Alagendran Finance Ltd on 27 July, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\/S. Alagendran Finance Ltd on 27 July, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3301 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Chennai\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/s. Alagendran Finance Ltd.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/07\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO.  3301                OF 2007
\n[Arising out of  SLP (Civil) No. 18372 of 2006]<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA, J :\n<\/p>\n
1.\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tWhether for the purpose of computing the period of limitation
\nenvisaged under Sub-section (2) of Section 263<\/a> of the Income Tax Act, 1961
\n(for short “the Act”), the date of order of assessment or that of the
\nreassessment, is to be taken into consideration is the question involved in
\nthis appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 18.01.2006
\npassed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras
\npassed in Income Tax Appeal No. 1384 to 1386 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe said question arises on the following facts :
\n \tRespondent is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies
\nAct<\/a>, 1956.  It filed its returns for assessment under the Act for the
\nassessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 on 23.11.1994, 27.11.1995
\nand 26.11.1997 respectively.  Assessment for the year 1994-95 was
\ncompleted on 27.02.1997 and those of the Assessment Years 1995-96 and
\n1996-97 were completed on 12.05.1997 and 30.03.1998 respectively.  In the
\nsaid orders of assessment, the assessee’s return under the Head ‘Lease
\nEqualization Fund’ was accepted.  However, proceedings for reassessment
\nwere initiated by the assessing officer on 05.03.2004.  Orders of
\nreassessment were passed on 28.03.2002.  Proceedings for reassessment,
\nhowever, were initiated only in respect of three items, viz., (i), the expenses
\nclaimed for share issue, (ii), bad and doubtful debts and (iii), excess
\ndepreciation on gas cylinders and goods containers.\n<\/p>\n
 \tAlthough the assessee’s return in respect of lease equalization  was
\nnot the subject matter of the reassessment proceedings, the Commissioner of
\nIncome Tax purported to invoke his revisional jurisdiction in terms of
\nSection 263<\/a> of the Act and by an order dated 29.03.2004 held as under:\n<\/p>\n
“5. In short, from the example given it is the
\ndepreciation on the leased assets that is clamed as
\nBook Depreciation and disallowed in the
\ncomputation of income, the assessee sought to
\nclaim in the form of Lease Equalisation from the
\nlease rentals by virtue of the guidelines note of the
\nInstitute of Chartered Accountants of India.
\n***\t\t***\t\t***\n<\/p>\n
7. Since the assessee has not given the complete
\ndetails, the method adopted by the assessee in
\narriving at the correct profit for the corresponding
\nyear cannot be checked.  I clearly feel that the
\norders by the Assessing Officer are prejudicial to
\nthe interest of the revenue as the lease rentals had
\nnot been properly brought to tax.  Hence, all the
\nthree assessments are reopened u\/s 263 and the
\nAssessing Officer is directed to check and assess
\nthe lease rentals from Lease equalisation fund, if
\nany, and to bring to tax the same for all the above
\nthree years.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tPursuant to or in furtherance of the said order, reassessment
\nproceedings were carried out in respect of the aforementioned assessment
\nyears by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax only in respect of the
\nincome on equalization reserve stating:
\n“I have considered the various arguments of the
\nassessee’s representative and I am satisfied that
\nthe deduction made from the gross lease rent is
\nonly a provisional and not an actual expenditure
\nand therefore the same is to be disallowed and
\nadded to the income returned”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe matter came up for consideration before the Income Tax
\nAppellate Tribunal wherein the contention of the respondent that the said
\npurported proceedings under Section 263<\/a> of the Act were barred by
\nlimitation, found favour with, opining:
\n“6. We have carefully gone through the record and
\nconsidered the rival submissions.  In our view, the
\ncontentions of the Assessee deserve to succeed.
\nThe facts of the case clearly show the claim of
\nlease equalisation fund, if at all accepted, is an
\nerror committed by the Assessing Officer in his
\norder passed under Sec. 143 (3) of the Act for the
\nAsst. Year 94-95 on 27.2.97, for the Asst. Year 95-
\n96 on 12.5.97 and for the Asst. Year on 30.3.98.
\nThe Assessee, no doubt, took up these assessments
\nin appeal before the CIT (Appeals) and thereafter
\nthe assessment itself was subject to proceedings
\nunder Sec. 148 and ultimately, the orders of
\nreassessment were framed on 28.3.2002.  All the
\nsubsequent events are in respect of matters other
\nthan the allowance of lease equalization fund.  In
\nother words, the error, if any, has been committed,
\nit was done in the order of the Assessing Officer
\npassed Asst. the year 97-98.  Therefore, these
\norders very much subsist despite the subsequent
\nproceedings under sec. 148 of the Act.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned Tribunal referred to several decisions of this Court and
\nother High Courts for arriving inter alia at the following conclusion:
\n“8. In the light of the above decisions and
\nauthorities, we are of the opinion that the
\nimpugned order passed under Sec. 263 on
\n29.03.2004 are clearly barred by limitation with
\nreference to the orders passed under Sec. 143 (3)
\nby the Assessing Officer for the above Asst. years
\non 27.2.97; 25.12.97 and 30.3.98 respectively.
\nAccordingly, the orders of the CIT under Sec. 263
\nare vacated and the ground taken by the Assessee
\nis allowed.”\n<\/p>\n
\tRevenue preferred an appeal thereagainst before the High Court
\nwhich was dismissed by a Division Bench stating:
\n“2. Learned Senior Central Government Standing
\nCounsel submits that the very same issue has been
\nraised and decided by the Court against the
\nRevenue in the case of CWT Vs. A.K. Thanga
\nPillai (252 ITR 260).”\n<\/p>\n
 \tAggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, the Revenue is before us.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tMr. Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nappellant in support of the appeal inter alia would submit that having regard
\nto the Explanation appended to Sub-section (3) of Section 263<\/a> of the Act as
\nalso in view of the doctrine of merger, the Tribunal committed a manifest
\nerror in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into
\nconsideration that in law computation of period of limitation was to
\ncommence from the date of passing of the order of reassessment viz.,
\n28.03.2002 and not from the date of the initial assessment, and as the
\nproceeding under Section 263<\/a> was initiated on 05.03.2004, the provision of
\nsub-section (2) of Section 263<\/a> would not be attracted in the instant case.
\nStrong reliance in this behalf has been placed on Hind Wire Industries Ltd.
\nv. Commissioner of Income Tax<\/a> [212 ITR 639].\n<\/p>\n
5.\tMr. Anil Diwan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nrespondent  assessee, on the other hand, submitted:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tThe income head ‘lease equalization fund’ being not the subject
\nmatter of the reassessment proceedings, the doctrine of merger
\nwill have no application in the instant case and in that view of
\nthe matter, the impugned order of the Tribunal as also the High
\nCourt is unassailable.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tThe issue has rightly been held by the High Court to be
\nsquarely covered by the decision of the Madras High Court in
\nCommissioner of Wealth-Tax v. A.K. Thanga Pillai<\/a> [252 ITR
\n260].\n<\/p>\n
6.\tBefore embarking upon the rival contentions of the parties raised
\nbefore us, we may notice the relevant part of Section 263<\/a> of the Act which is
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
“263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue  –
\n(1) The Commissioner may call for and examine
\nthe record of any proceeding under this Act, and if
\nhe considers that any order passed therein by the
\nAssessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is
\nprejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may,
\nafter giving the assessee an opportunity of being
\nheard and after making or causing to be made such
\ninquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order
\nthereon as the circumstances of the case justify,
\nincluding an order enhancing or modifying the
\nassessment, or cancelling the assessment and
\ndirecting a fresh assessment.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is
\nhereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub-
\nsection,-\n<\/p>\n
(a) ***\t\t\t***\t\t\t***\n<\/p>\n
 (b) ***\t\t\t***\t\t\t***\n<\/p>\n
(c) where any order referred to in this sub-
\nsection and passed by the Assessing Officer had
\nbeen the subject matter of any appeal filed on
\nor before or after the 1st day of June, 1988, the
\npowers of the Commissioner under this sub-
\nsection shall extend and shall be deemed
\nalways to have extended to such matters as had
\nnot been considered and decided in such appeal.
\n (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1)
\nafter the expiry of two years from the end of the
\nfinancial year in which the order sought to be
\nrevised was passed.\n<\/p>\n
 (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
\nsection (2), an order in revision under this section
\nmay be passed at any time in the case of an order
\nwhich has been passed in consequence of, or to
\ngive effect to, any finding or direction contained in
\nan order of the Appellate Tribunal, the High Court
\nor the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation.-In computing the period of limitation
\nfor the purposes of sub-section (2), the time taken
\nin giving an opportunity to the assessee to be
\nreheard under the proviso to section 129<\/a> and any
\nperiod during which any proceeding under this
\nsection is stayed by an order or injunction of any
\ncourt shall be excluded.”\n<\/p>\n
7.\tA bare perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income
\nTax would clearly demonstrate that only that part of order of assessment
\nwhich related to lease equalization fund was found to be prejudicial to the
\ninterest of the Revenue.  The proceedings for reassessment have nothing to
\ndo with the said head of income.  Doctrine of merger, therefore, would not
\napply in a case of this nature.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tFurthermore, Explanation (c) appended to Sub-section (1) of Section
\n263<\/a> of the Act is clear and unambiguous as in terms thereof doctrine of
\nmerger applies only in respect of such items which were the subject matter
\nof appeal and not which were not.  The question came up for consideration
\nbefore this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sun Engineering
\nWorks P. Ltd<\/a>. [198 ITR 297].  Therein the assessee raised a contention that
\nonce jurisdiction under Section 147<\/a> of the Act is invoked, the whole
\nassessment proceeding became reopened, which was negatived by the court
\nopining:\n<\/p>\n
“Section 147<\/a>, which is subject to Section 148<\/a>,
\ndivides cases of income escaping assessment into
\ntwo clauses i.e. viz. (a) those due to the non-
\nsubmission of return of income or non-disclosure
\nof true and full facts and (b) other instances.
\nExplanation (1) defines as to what constitutes
\nescape of assessment. In order to invoke
\njurisdiction under Section 147(a)<\/a> of the Act, the
\nITO must have reason to believe that some income
\nchargeable to tax of an assessee has escaped
\nassessment by reason of the omission or failure on
\nthe part of the assessee either to make a return
\nunder Section 139<\/a> for the relevant assessment year
\nor to disclose fully and truly material facts
\nnecessary for the assessment for that year. Both the
\nconditions must exist before an ITO can proceed to
\nexercise jurisdiction under Section 147(a)<\/a> of the
\nAct. Under Section 147(b)<\/a> the Income-tax Officer
\nalso has the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for
\nreassessment where he has reason to believe, on
\nthe basis of information in his possession, that
\nincome chargeable to tax has been either under-
\nassessed or has been assessed at too low a rate or
\nhas been made the subject of excessive relief under
\nthe Act or excessive loss or depreciation allowance
\nhas been computed. In either case whether the
\nIncome-tax Officer invokes his jurisdiction under
\nClause (a) or Clause (b) or both, the proceedings
\nfor bringing to tax an ‘escaped assessment’ can
\nonly commence by issuance of a notice under
\nSection 148<\/a> of the Act within the time prescribed
\nunder the Act. Thus, under Section 147<\/a>, the
\nassessing officer has been vested with the power to
\n“assess or reassess” the escaped income of an
\nassessee. The use of the expression “assess or
\nreassess such income or recompute the loss or
\ndepreciation allowance” in Section 147<\/a> after the
\nconditions for reassessment are satisfied, is only
\nrelatable to the preceding expression in Clauses (a)
\nand (b) viz., “escaped assessment”. The term
\n“escaped assessment” includes both “non-
\nassessment” as well as “under assessment”. Income
\nis said to have “escaped assessment” within the
\nmeaning of this section when it has not been
\ncharged in the hands of an assessee in the relevant
\nyear of assessment. The expression “assess” refers
\nto a situation where the assessment of the assessee
\nfor a particular year is, for the first time, made by
\nresorting to the provisions of Section 147<\/a> because
\nthe assessment had not been made in the regular
\nmanner under the Act. The expression “reassess”
\nrefers to a situation where an assessment has
\nalready been made but the Income-tax Officer has,
\non the basis of information in his possession,
\nreason to believe that there has been under
\nassessment on account of the existence of any of
\nthe grounds contemplated by the provisions of
\nSection 147(b)<\/a> read with the Explanation (I)
\nthereto.”\n<\/p>\n
9.\tWe may at this juncture also notice the decision of this Court in Hind
\nWire Industries Ltd (supra) wherein the decision of this Court in V.
\nJaganmohan Rao v. CIT and CEPT<\/a> [75 ITR 373] interpreting the provisions
\nof Section 34<\/a> of the Act was reproduced which reads as under:
\n“Section 34<\/a> in terms states that once the Income-
\ntax officer decides to reopen the assessment, he
\ncould do so within the period prescribed by serving
\non the person liable to pay tax a notice containing
\nall or any of the requirements which may be
\nincluded in a notice under section 22(2)<\/a> and may
\nproceed to assess or reassess such income, profits
\nor gains.  It is, therefore, manifest that once
\nassessment is reopened by issuing a notice under
\nsub-section (2) of section 22<\/a>, the previous
\nunderassessment is set aside and the whole
\nassessment proceedings start afresh.  When once
\nvalid proceedings are started under section
\n34(1)(b)<\/a>, the Income-tax Officer had not only the
\njurisdiction, but it was his duty to levy tax on the
\nentire income that had escaped assessment during
\nthat year.”\n<\/p>\n
10.\tThere may not be any doubt or dispute that once an order of
\nassessment is reopened, the previous underassessment will be held to be set
\naside and the whole proceedings would start afresh but the same would not
\nmean that even when the subject matter of reassessment is distinct and
\ndifferent, the entire proceeding of assessment would be deemed to have been
\nreopened.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tIn Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd (supra) also, V. Jaganmohan Rao
\n(supra) was noticed stating:\n<\/p>\n
“The principle laid down by this Court in
\nJaganmohan Rao’s case, therefore, is only to the
\nextent that once an assessment is validly reopened
\nby issuance of a notice under Section 22(2)<\/a> of the
\n1922 Act (corresponding to Section 148<\/a> of the
\nAct) the previous under assessment is set aside and
\nthe ITO has the jurisdiction and duty to levy tax on
\nthe entire income that had escaped assessment
\nduring the previous yearThe judgment in
\nJaganmohan Rao’s case, therefore, cannot be read
\nto imply as laying down that in the reassessment
\nproceedings validly initiated, the assessee can seek
\nreopening of the whole assessment and claim
\ncredit in respect of items finally concluded in the
\noriginal assessment. The assessee cannot claim
\nrecomputation of the income or redoing of an
\nassessment and be allowed a claim which he either
\nfailed to make or which was otherwise rejected at
\nthe time of original assessment which has since
\nacquired finality. Of course, in the reassessment
\nproceedings it is open to an assessee to show that
\nthe income alleged to have escaped assessment has
\nin truth and in fact not escaped assessment but that
\nthe same had been shown under some
\ninappropriate head in the original return, but to
\nread the judgment in Jaganmohan Rao’s case, as if
\nlaying down that reassessment wipes out the
\noriginal assessment and that reassessment is not
\nonly confined to “escaped assessment” or “under
\nassessment” but to the entire assessment for the
\nyear and starts the assessment proceeding de novo
\ngiving the right to an assessee to reagitate matters
\nwhich he had lost during the original assessment
\nproceeding, which had acquired finality, is not
\nonly erroneous but also against the phraseology of
\nSection 147<\/a> of the Act and the object of
\nreassessment proceedings. Such an interpretation
\nwould be reading that judgment totally out of
\ncontext in which the questions arose for decision in
\nthat case. It is neither desirable nor permissible to
\npick out a word or a sentence from the judgment of
\nthis Court, divorced from the context of the
\nquestion under consideration and treat it to be the
\ncomplete ‘law’ declared by this Court. The
\njudgment must be read as a whole and the
\nobservations from the judgment have to be
\nconsidered in the light of the questions which were
\nbefore this Court. A decision of this Court takes its
\ncolour from the questions involved in the case in
\nwhich it is rendered and while applying the
\ndecision to a later case, the courts must carefully
\ntry to ascertain the true principle laid down by the
\ndecision of this Court and not to pick out words or
\nsentences from the judgment, divorced from the
\ncontext of the questions under consideration by
\nthis Court, to support their reasonings”\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt was furthermore held:\n<\/p>\n
“As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we find
\nthat in proceedings under Section 147<\/a> of the Act,
\nthe Income Tax Officer may bring to charge items
\nof income which had escaped assessment other
\nthan or in addition to that item or items which have
\nled to the issuance of notice under Section 148<\/a> and
\nwhere ressessment is made under Section 147<\/a> in
\nrespect of income which has escaped tax, the
\nIncome Tax Officer’s jurisdiction is confined to
\nonly such income which has escaped tax or has
\nbeen under-assessed and does not extend to
\nrevising, reopening or reconsidering the whole
\nassessment or permitting the assessee to reagitate
\nquestions which had been decided in the original
\nassessment proceedings. It is only the under-
\nassessment which is set aside and not the entire
\nassessment when reassessment proceedings are
\ninitiated. The Income Tax Officer cannot make an
\norder of reassessment inconsistent with the original
\norder of assessment in respect of metters which are
\nnot the subject-matter of proceedings under
\nSection 147<\/a>”\n<\/p>\n
12.\tWe may at this juncture also take note of the fact that even the
\nTribunal found that all the subsequent events were in respect of the matters
\nother than the allowance of ‘lease equalization fund’.  The said finding of
\nfact is binding on us.  Doctrine of merger, therefore, in the fact situation
\nobtaining herein cannot be said to have any application whatsoever.  It is not
\na case where the subject matter of reassessment and subject matter of
\nassessment were the same.  They were not.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tIt may be of some interest to notice that a similar contention raised at
\nthe instance of an assessee was rejected by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in
\nCommissioner of Income-Tax v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd<\/a>. [231 ITR 50].  This
\nCourt took note of the amendment made in Section 263<\/a> of the Act by the
\nFinance Act<\/a>, 1989 with retrospective effect from June 1, 1988, inserting
\nExplanation (c) to Sub-section (1) of Section 263<\/a> of the Act stating:
\n“The consequence of the said amendment made
\nwith retrospective effect is that the powers under
\nsection 263 of the Commissioner shall extend and
\nshall be deemed always to have extended to such
\nmatters as had not been considered and decided in
\nan appeal.  Accordingly, even in respect of the
\naforesaid three items, the powers of the
\nCommissioner under section 263<\/a> shall extend and
\nshall be deemed always to have extended to them
\nbecause the same had not been considered and
\ndecided in the appeal filed by the assessee.  This is
\nsufficient to answer the question which has been
\nreferred.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tWe, therefore, are clearly of the opinion that in a case of this nature,
\nthe doctrine of merger will have no application.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tThe Madras High Court in A.K. Thanga Pillai (supra), in our opinion,
\nhas rightly considered the matter albeit under Section 17<\/a> of the Wealth Tax
\nAct, 1957 which is in pari materia with the provisions of the Act.  Relying
\non Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd (supra), it was held:
\n“Under section 17<\/a> of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957,
\neven as it is under section 147<\/a> of the Income-tax
\nAct, proceedings for reassessment can be initiated
\nwhen what is assessable to tax has escaped
\nassessment for any assessment year.  The power to
\ndeal with underassessment and the scope of
\nreassessment proceedings as explained by the
\nSupreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering
\n[1992] 198 ITR 297, is in relation to that which
\nhas escaped assessment, and does not extend to
\nreopening the entire assessment for the purpose of
\nredoing the same de novo.  An assessee cannot
\nagitate in any such reassessment proceedings
\nmatters forming part of the original assessment
\nwhich are not required to be dealt with for the
\npurpose of levying tax on that which had escaped
\ntax earlier.  Cases of underassessment are also
\ntreated as instances of escaped assessment.
\nThe order of reassessment is one which deals with
\nthe assessment already made in respect of items
\nwhich are not required to be reopened, as also
\nmatters which are required to be dealt with in order
\nto bring what had escaped in the earlier order of
\nassessment, to assessment.  An assessee who has
\nfailed to file an appeal against the original order of
\nassessment cannot utilise the reassessment
\nproceedings as an occasion for seeking revision or
\nreview of what had been assessed earlier.  He may
\nonly question the extent of the reassessment in so
\nfar as the escaped assessment is concerned.
\nThe Revenue is similarly bound”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe same principle was reiterated by a Division Bench of the Calcutta
\nHigh Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Kanubhai Engineers (P<\/a>.) Ltd.
\n[241 ITR 665].\n<\/p>\n
15.\tWe, therefore, are clearly of the opinion that keeping in view the facts
\nand circumstances of this case and, in particular, having regard to the fact
\nthat the Commissioner of Income Tax exercising its revisional jurisdiction
\nreopened the order of assessment only in relation to lease equalization fund
\nwhich being not the subject of the reassessment proceedings, the period of
\nlimitation provided for under Sub-section (2) of Section 263<\/a> of the Act
\nwould begin to run from the date of the order of assessment and not from the
\norder of reassessment.  The revisional jurisdiction having, thus, been
\ninvoked by the Commissioner of Income Tax beyond the period of
\nlimitation, it was wholly without jurisdiction rendering the entire proceeding
\na nullity.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tThe Tribunal and the High Court, therefore, in our opinion were
\ncorrect in passing the impugned judgment.  The appeal, therefore, being
\ndevoid of any merit is dismissed with costs.  Counsel’s fee assessed at Rs.
\n25,000\/-.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\/S. Alagendran Finance Ltd on 27 July, 2007 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3301 of 2007 PETITIONER: Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai RESPONDENT: M\/s. Alagendran Finance Ltd. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/07\/2007 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh […]<\/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-262607","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M\/S. Alagendran Finance Ltd on 27 July, 2007 - 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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-alagendran-finance-ltd-on-27-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M\/S. Alagendran Finance Ltd on 27 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-alagendran-finance-ltd-on-27-july-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-20T06:59:47+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\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-alagendran-finance-ltd-on-27-july-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-alagendran-finance-ltd-on-27-july-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\\\/S. Alagendran Finance Ltd on 27 July, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-20T06:59:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-alagendran-finance-ltd-on-27-july-2007\"},\"wordCount\":3743,\"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\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-alagendran-finance-ltd-on-27-july-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-alagendran-finance-ltd-on-27-july-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-alagendran-finance-ltd-on-27-july-2007\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M\\\/S. Alagendran Finance Ltd on 27 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-20T06:59:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-alagendran-finance-ltd-on-27-july-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-alagendran-finance-ltd-on-27-july-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-alagendran-finance-ltd-on-27-july-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\\\/S. Alagendran Finance Ltd on 27 July, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M\/S. Alagendran Finance Ltd on 27 July, 2007 - 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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-alagendran-finance-ltd-on-27-july-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M\/S. Alagendran Finance Ltd on 27 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-alagendran-finance-ltd-on-27-july-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-20T06:59:47+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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-alagendran-finance-ltd-on-27-july-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-alagendran-finance-ltd-on-27-july-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\/S. Alagendran Finance Ltd on 27 July, 2007","datePublished":"2007-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-20T06:59:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-alagendran-finance-ltd-on-27-july-2007"},"wordCount":3743,"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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-alagendran-finance-ltd-on-27-july-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-alagendran-finance-ltd-on-27-july-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-alagendran-finance-ltd-on-27-july-2007","name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M\/S. Alagendran Finance Ltd on 27 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-20T06:59:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-alagendran-finance-ltd-on-27-july-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-alagendran-finance-ltd-on-27-july-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-alagendran-finance-ltd-on-27-july-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\/S. Alagendran Finance Ltd on 27 July, 2007"}]},{"@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\/262607","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=262607"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262607\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262607"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262607"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262607"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}