{"id":27000,"date":"2009-07-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prempal-gandhi-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-i-on-22-july-2009"},"modified":"2017-06-10T20:15:14","modified_gmt":"2017-06-10T14:45:14","slug":"prempal-gandhi-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-i-on-22-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prempal-gandhi-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-i-on-22-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Prempal Gandhi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-I on 22 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Prempal Gandhi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-I on 22 July, 2009<\/div>\n
I.T.A. No. 353 of 2009 (O&M)                                      (1)\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                                       I.T.A. No. 353 of 2009 (O&M)\n\n                                       DATE OF DECISION: 22.7.2009\n\n\nPrempal Gandhi                                      ..........Appellant\n\n                          Versus\n\nCommissioner of Income Tax-I, Aayakar               ..........Respondent\nBhagwan, Jalandhar\n\n\nCORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL\n        HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY\n\nPresent:-    Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate\n             for the appellant.\n\n                          ****\n\n\nADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral)\n<\/pre>\n
1.           The assessee has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of<\/p>\n
the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of Income<\/p>\n
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar dated 12.1.2009 passed<\/p>\n
in ITA No. 383 (ASR)\/2008 for the assessment year 1999-2000 , proposing<\/p>\n
to raise following substantial questions of law:-<\/p>\n
                   (i) “Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case,<\/p>\n
                      the Tribunal was justified in reversing the well versed<\/p>\n
                      and speaking orders of the first appellate authority in<\/p>\n
                      deleting the penalty so levied by the AO u\/s 271(1)(c)<\/p>\n
                      of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (ii)”Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case,<\/p>\n
                      the Tribunal was justified in reversing the well versed<\/p>\n
                      and speaking orders of the first appellate authority by<\/p>\n
                      holding that the revised return was filed after detection<\/p>\n
                      of concealed income which is against the facts and<\/p>\n
                      established principles of law that surrender\/admission
\n I.T.A. No. 353 of 2009 (O&M)                                 (2)<\/p>\n
                    by filling revised return will not lead to concealment<\/p>\n
                    wherein the surrender has been accepted as such<\/p>\n
                    without making any further enquiries?”\n<\/p>\n
                 (iii)”Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the<\/p>\n
                    case, the Tribunal was justified in reversing the well<\/p>\n
                    versed and speaking orders of the first appellate<\/p>\n
                    authority by ignoring the established principles of law<\/p>\n
                    as confirmed by Jurisdictional High Court as laid down<\/p>\n
                    in the case of CIT Vs. Sudarshan Gupta, (2008) 10<\/p>\n
                    DTR (P&H) 184 by holding that “The statement of<\/p>\n
                    surrender has got to be accepted in toto or it has got<\/p>\n
                    to be ignored?”\n<\/p>\n
                 (iv)”Whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse and<\/p>\n
                    against the provisions of law?”\n<\/p>\n
2.         The assessee derives income from property dealings. After<\/p>\n
assessment was completed, it came to the notice of the Assessing Officer<\/p>\n
that assessee had substantial transactions in bank which were not<\/p>\n
disclosed. Proceedings were initiated for re-assessment. The assessee<\/p>\n
filed revised return and offered the peak credits in the bank account and<\/p>\n
interest thereon, with a condition that no penalty be imposed and he may<\/p>\n
not be prosecuted. The Assessing Officer did not accept the conditions.<\/p>\n
The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and also initiated<\/p>\n
proceedings for penalty for the assessment years in question.        After<\/p>\n
following due procedure, penalty was imposed.<\/p>\n
3.         The CIT(A) accepted the plea of the assessee to the effect that<\/p>\n
the assessee having filed higher return and surrendered the undisclosed<\/p>\n
income, penalty was not leviable. Reliance was placed on the judgment of<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal 251 ITR 9.<\/p>\n
4.         The Tribunal reversed the view taken by the CIT(A) and
\n I.T.A. No. 353 of 2009 (O&M)                                  (3)<\/p>\n
maintained the order of penalty. It was observed:-<\/p>\n
                  “We have heard both the parties and perused the<\/p>\n
                  material placed on record. The question of concealment<\/p>\n
                  of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of<\/p>\n
                  income for the purpose of section 271(1)(c) of the<\/p>\n
                  Income Tax Act, 1961 is to be determined with reference<\/p>\n
                  to the original return. Even if the income is surrendered<\/p>\n
                  in the revised return, the assessee still have to explain<\/p>\n
                  why the income was not shown and why inaccurate<\/p>\n
                  particulars of income were furnished in the original<\/p>\n
                  return. In case of bonafide error or in case of technical<\/p>\n
                  or venial breach of statutory provisions, the assessee<\/p>\n
                  might not be held guilty of default u\/s 271(1)(c) of the<\/p>\n
                  Act, where the assessee has fully cooperated with the<\/p>\n
                  Revenue authorities. On the other hand, when from the<\/p>\n
                  very   beginning,    the   assessee   has    intentionally<\/p>\n
                  concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of<\/p>\n
                  income, there is no question of assessee escaping<\/p>\n
                  penalty on account of filling of revised return Blame-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  worthiness attached to the assessee with reference to<\/p>\n
                  the original return cannot be avoided by filling revised<\/p>\n
                  return after concealment was detected by the Revenue<\/p>\n
                  authorities. Where the concealment of Income made in<\/p>\n
                  the original return or where the surrender of income<\/p>\n
                  made was not voluntarily.      But was as a result of<\/p>\n
                  detection by the AO, filling of revised return of is no<\/p>\n
                  consequence.        Section 139(5) applies to limited<\/p>\n
                  recourse of cases where in the original return, there was<\/p>\n
                  any omission or any wrong statement and not to cases
\n I.T.A. No. 353 of 2009 (O&M)                                 (4)<\/p>\n
                 of concealment or false statement if a case does not fall<\/p>\n
                 u\/s 139(5) of the Act, the fact that revised’ return was<\/p>\n
                 filed after any investigation was starred by the Income-<\/p>\n
                 tax department will be of no consequence.          In the<\/p>\n
                 present case, admittedly, the assessee has not<\/p>\n
                 disclosed the the impugned bank accounts where the<\/p>\n
                 huge amounts were lying. There is no whisper about<\/p>\n
                 these bank accounts in the original return.           The<\/p>\n
                 department detected these bank accounts and thereafter<\/p>\n
                 issued notice u\/s 148 of the Act.. After receipt of notice<\/p>\n
                 u\/s 148, the assessee filed the return and also filed a<\/p>\n
                 letter that amount offered for taxation, no penalty<\/p>\n
                 proceedings be initiated. In our opinion, the letter filed<\/p>\n
                 by the assessee is of no consequence and that<\/p>\n
                 surrender was made on detection of the bank accounts<\/p>\n
                 by the department and it is not a voluntary disclosure.<\/p>\n
                 Only because the assessee filed a letter stating that the<\/p>\n
                 assessee offered additional income appearing in the<\/p>\n
                 bank voluntary surrender. The assessee was forced to<\/p>\n
                 surrender the income and the letter given by the<\/p>\n
                 assessee that no penalty may be initiated was not<\/p>\n
                 acceptable to the department and the AO has given a<\/p>\n
                 letter to the assessee that he would not consider that<\/p>\n
                 portion of the letter.” ……..\n<\/p>\n
                 “7.1   But in the present case, the assessee has not<\/p>\n
                 disclosed to impugned bank accounts to the department.<\/p>\n
                 These accounts were disclosed by the assessee in the<\/p>\n
                 revised return only after the detection by the department.<\/p>\n
                 These accounts would not have been disclosed to the
\n I.T.A. No. 353 of 2009 (O&M)                                 (5)<\/p>\n
                 department, had the department not detected the same.<\/p>\n
                 Further, in the case of K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs. CIT<\/p>\n
                 251 ITR 99, (SC), it was held that it cannot be laid down<\/p>\n
                 as a general prescription that no penalty can be levied<\/p>\n
                 for agreed assessment; assessee having surrendered<\/p>\n
                 the amount of unexplained credits for assessment<\/p>\n
                 clearly admitting that entries were not recorded by him<\/p>\n
                 on the correct dates and temporary loans obtained by<\/p>\n
                 him were not recorded at all, he was liable to penalty u\/s<\/p>\n
                 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, read with explanation-1 of<\/p>\n
                 the I.T. Act.\n<\/p>\n
                 7.2   Further, in the present case, the assessee has not<\/p>\n
                 been able to lead any evidence that the revised returns<\/p>\n
                 were filed by the assessee merely the result of<\/p>\n
                 inadvertent mistake of omissions.         The assessee<\/p>\n
                 furnished inaccurate particular of his income and also<\/p>\n
                 concealed particulars of his income while filling the<\/p>\n
                 original return and was not able to establish the<\/p>\n
                 inadvertent mistake or omission in the original return,<\/p>\n
                 when declared showing much larger income in the<\/p>\n
                 revised return.   Out view of this is supported by the<\/p>\n
                 judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.C.<\/p>\n
                 Aggarwal Vs. CIT Assam, Nagaland, etc. 186 ITR 571,<\/p>\n
                 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the<\/p>\n
                 judgment of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of<\/p>\n
                 G.C. Agarwal Vs. CIT, Reported in 102 ITR 408.<\/p>\n
                 7.3   Further, in the case of Rajesh Chawala Vs. CIT<\/p>\n
                 reported in 203 CTR 209, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana<\/p>\n
                 High Court has held that the assessee has filed the
\n I.T.A. No. 353 of 2009 (O&M)                                   (6)<\/p>\n
                   revised return surrendering the additional income only<\/p>\n
                   on coming to know about the detection of concealment<\/p>\n
                   by the department and that it is not a case of bona fide<\/p>\n
                   voluntary disclosure, penalty u\/s 271(1)(c) is leviable.<\/p>\n
                   Hence, in our opinion, it is not possible to hold that in<\/p>\n
                   every case mere surrender of income will foreclose any<\/p>\n
                   action of concealment of income. The penalty is levied<\/p>\n
                   on the basis of the relevant material and revised return<\/p>\n
                   was filed on coming to know about the detection of the<\/p>\n
                   concealment and the assessee cannot escape penalty<\/p>\n
                   merely on the ground that he has surrendered the<\/p>\n
                   impugned amount.”\n<\/p>\n
5.          We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.<\/p>\n
6.          The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant is that the assessee had plausible explanation to give and the<\/p>\n
assessee having surrendered the income and no further enquiry having<\/p>\n
been held, penalty was not justified.\n<\/p>\n
7.          Reliance has been placed on following judgments:-<\/p>\n
                   (i) CIT Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9<\/p>\n
                     (SC)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   (ii)CIT Vs. Kohinoor Impex P. Ltd., (2004) 270 ITR 381<\/p>\n
                     (DEL)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   (iii)CIT Vs. Beta Nepthol Ltd. 272 ITR 323<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   (iv)Dilip No. Shroff Vs. Joint CIT, 291 ITR 521<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   (v)T.Ashok Pai Vs. CIT, 292 ITR 11<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   (vi)CIT Vs. Rajnish Nath Aggarwal (2008) 8 DTR<\/p>\n
                     (P&H) 253<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   (vii)CIT Vs. Shankerlal Nebhumal Uttamchandani<\/p>\n
                     (2008) 4 DTR 238 (GUJ)
\n I.T.A. No. 353 of 2009 (O&M)                                   (7)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   (viii)CIT Vs. Oriental Power Cable Ltd., 9 DTR 309<\/p>\n
                     (Raj)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   (ix)CIT Vs. Smt. Sudershan Gupta 10 DTR 184 (P&H)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   (x)CIT Vs. Rajiv Garg and others 18 DTR 152 (P&H)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   (xi)CCE Vs. Adhunik Steels Ltd. 228 DTR 228 (P&H)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   (xii)Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT 258 ITR 85 (P&H)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   (xiii)CIT Vs. Union Electric Corporation 281 ITR 266<\/p>\n
                     (GUJ)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   (xiv)CIT Vs. Suraj Bhan 294 ITR 481 (P&H)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
8.          We do not find any merit in the contention raised.            The<\/p>\n
plausibility or otherwise the   explanation of the assessee was a pure<\/p>\n
question of fact. Admittedly, the assessee concealed transactions in the<\/p>\n
bank account and when notice of re-assessment was issued, finding no<\/p>\n
other way out, the assessee surrendered income, to avoid penal<\/p>\n
consequences. In such a situation, it could not be held, as was held in the<\/p>\n
cases relied upon, that the assessees wanted to buy peace of mind and<\/p>\n
there was no evidence of concealment, which called for penalty. This is<\/p>\n
not a case where penalty has been imposed only because assessee<\/p>\n
disclosed higher income voluntarily but a case of clear concealment where<\/p>\n
the assessee having found no other way out, was forced to surrender<\/p>\n
undisclosed income. The judgments relied upon do not apply.<\/p>\n
9.          No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n                                            (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)\n                                                  JUDGE\n\n\n\nJuly 22, 2009                               (DAYA CHAUDHARY)\npooja                                            JUDGE\n\n<\/pre>\n
Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter …….Yes\/No
\n I.T.A. No. 353 of 2009 (O&M)   (8)\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Prempal Gandhi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-I on 22 July, 2009 I.T.A. No. 353 of 2009 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A. No. 353 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 22.7.2009 Prempal Gandhi ……….Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Aayakar ……….Respondent Bhagwan, Jalandhar CORAM:- HON’BLE […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27000","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPrempal Gandhi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-I on 22 July, 2009 - 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\/prempal-gandhi-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-i-on-22-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prempal Gandhi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-I on 22 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prempal-gandhi-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-i-on-22-july-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-10T14:45:14+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prempal-gandhi-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-i-on-22-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prempal-gandhi-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-i-on-22-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prempal Gandhi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-I on 22 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-10T14:45:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prempal-gandhi-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-i-on-22-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1703,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prempal-gandhi-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-i-on-22-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prempal-gandhi-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-i-on-22-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prempal-gandhi-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-i-on-22-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Prempal Gandhi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-I on 22 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-10T14:45:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prempal-gandhi-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-i-on-22-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prempal-gandhi-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-i-on-22-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prempal-gandhi-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-i-on-22-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prempal Gandhi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-I on 22 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Prempal Gandhi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-I on 22 July, 2009 - 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\/prempal-gandhi-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-i-on-22-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prempal Gandhi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-I on 22 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prempal-gandhi-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-i-on-22-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-10T14:45:14+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prempal-gandhi-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-i-on-22-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prempal-gandhi-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-i-on-22-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prempal Gandhi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-I on 22 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-10T14:45:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prempal-gandhi-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-i-on-22-july-2009"},"wordCount":1703,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prempal-gandhi-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-i-on-22-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prempal-gandhi-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-i-on-22-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prempal-gandhi-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-i-on-22-july-2009","name":"Prempal Gandhi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-I on 22 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-10T14:45:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prempal-gandhi-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-i-on-22-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prempal-gandhi-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-i-on-22-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prempal-gandhi-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-i-on-22-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prempal Gandhi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-I on 22 July, 2009"}]},{"@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\/27000","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=27000"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27000\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27000"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27000"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27000"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}