{"id":29026,"date":"2010-10-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-jose-cyriac-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-22-october-2010"},"modified":"2017-11-06T10:30:03","modified_gmt":"2017-11-06T05:00:03","slug":"sri-jose-cyriac-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-22-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-jose-cyriac-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-22-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sri. Jose Cyriac vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 22 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sri. Jose Cyriac vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 22 October, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nITA.No. 76 of 2010()\n\n\n1. SRI. JOSE CYRIAC,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN\n\n Dated :22\/10\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                                                                                    C.R.\n                     C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &\n                          K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.\n                ....................................................................\n          I.T. Appeal Nos.76 of 2010, 1168, 684 & 777 of 2009\n                ....................................................................\n                Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2010.\n\n                                       JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Ramachandran Nair, J.\n<\/p>\n
      Connected appeals, one filed by the assessee and three filed by<\/p>\n
the Revenue relate to the assessments of relatives and related concerns<\/p>\n
pursuant to search made under Section 132 and survey made under<\/p>\n
Section 133A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter called “the Act”). We<\/p>\n
have heard Senior counsel Sri.P.K.R.Menon appearing for the Revenue<\/p>\n
and Adv. Sri.P.Balakrishnan appearing for the assessees.<\/p>\n
      2. The facts leading to the controversy are the following. The<\/p>\n
following business concerns generally known as Carbo Group have<\/p>\n
their office in Carbo House, Old Railway Station Road, Cochin-18:<\/p>\n
      1. Carbographics Pvt. Ltd.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      2. Carbo Colour Ltd.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      3. Carbo Aquamarine Exports Pvt. Ltd.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      4. Bethal Chemical Industries P. Ltd.<\/p>\n
ITA No.76\/2010 & conn.              2<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     5. Kurian’s Ink and Chemicals Ltd.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     6. Jagannath Aqua Culture Tuticorin P. Ltd.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     7. M\/s.K.C.Thomas & Co.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     8. M\/s.Carbo Chemical Industries<\/p>\n
     9. M\/s.Jose Kurian & Sons<\/p>\n
The partners of the firms and directors of the Companies are admittedly<\/p>\n
brothers by name Jose Cyriac, Jose Kurian, son of one of the partners<\/p>\n
by name P.C. Joy and other family members. Suspecting suppression<\/p>\n
and concealment of income by the partners and the business concerns,<\/p>\n
the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) issued search warrants in<\/p>\n
Form 45 showing the places to be searched as the group head office of<\/p>\n
“Carbo Group of Conerns” specifically showing their office address<\/p>\n
and stating in the very same warrant the name and residential address<\/p>\n
of the partner to be searched. Similarly search warrant was issued in<\/p>\n
the case of each and every partner\/director of the business concerns.<\/p>\n
Based on the search warrants, search and survey operations are carried<\/p>\n
out and all the assessees were called upon to file returns of undisclosed<\/p>\n
income. All the assessees filed returns without any contest about the<\/p>\n
ITA No.76\/2010 & conn.              3<\/span><\/p>\n
validity of the assessments initiated pursuant to search and survey.<\/p>\n
Assessments completed were challenged in first appeal before the<\/p>\n
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) wherein also the assessees did<\/p>\n
not contest the validity of the assessments on the ground that search<\/p>\n
was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 132 of<\/p>\n
the Act or for any defect in the search warrants issued. The CIT<\/p>\n
(Appeals) while considering the appeals did not have any opportunity<\/p>\n
to consider the validity of assessments on the ground of any omission<\/p>\n
or mistake or irregularity in the search warrants issued.       The only<\/p>\n
contention raised by all the assessees in first appeals was that assessees<\/p>\n
were not given sufficient opportunity by the Assessing Officer to raise<\/p>\n
their objections against the income determined.       The Commissioner<\/p>\n
(Appeals) upheld the claim of the assessees that sufficient opportunity<\/p>\n
was not given to raise objection against the proposal for assessment<\/p>\n
and so much so, he set aside all the assessments and remanded the<\/p>\n
cases to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The department<\/p>\n
challenged the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)<\/p>\n
before the Tribunal.     The contention of the Revenue before the<\/p>\n
ITA No.76\/2010 & conn.             4<\/span><\/p>\n
Tribunal was that the assessees after receipt of notices from the<\/p>\n
Assessing Officer took ten months’ time to file even returns and,<\/p>\n
therefore, the assessees cannot complain that they were not given<\/p>\n
sufficient time by the Assessing Officer before making assessments.<\/p>\n
Even though pursuant to CIT (Appeal)’s orders in the first round of<\/p>\n
appeals some of the assessments were revised during the pendency of<\/p>\n
departmental appeals before the Tribunal, the Tribunal later upheld the<\/p>\n
claim of the department that delay in completion of assessments is<\/p>\n
more attributable to assessees who took ten months’ time to file the<\/p>\n
returns and such returns were filed on the verge of expiry of time limit<\/p>\n
for completion of assessments, set aside the orders of CIT (Appeals)<\/p>\n
and the matter was remitted back to the CIT (Appeals) for<\/p>\n
consideration of the appeal on merits i.e. on the income determined<\/p>\n
based on materials gathered in search and survey.\n<\/p>\n
      3. When the appeals were taken up by the CIT (Appeals) after<\/p>\n
remand, the assessees for the first time raised a contention that the<\/p>\n
assessments were invalid for the reason that search warrant was issued<\/p>\n
in the name of “Carbo Group of concerns” who are not assessees and so<\/p>\n
ITA No.76\/2010 & conn.              5<\/span><\/p>\n
much so, the search conducted under Section 132 is invalid which<\/p>\n
affects the validity of assessments. In fact, the appeals were restored to<\/p>\n
the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by the Tribunal with a<\/p>\n
specific direction to consider the assessments on merit. In other words,<\/p>\n
the validity of assessments on ground of alleged irregularity in the<\/p>\n
search warrant issued under Section 132 was not questioned in the first<\/p>\n
round of appeals which reached upto the Tribunal.          Even though<\/p>\n
remand order issued by the Tribunal did not authorise the CIT<\/p>\n
(Appeals) to consider the validity of assessments on the alleged ground<\/p>\n
of irregularity in the search, the Commissioner still proceeded to<\/p>\n
consider the assessees’ contention in regard to validity of search. The<\/p>\n
CIT (Appeals) accepted the contention of the assessees that the search<\/p>\n
carried out with warrant issued in the name of “Carbo Group of<\/p>\n
concerns” was an invalid search and consequently assessments were<\/p>\n
cancelled by him. When the Revenue took up the matter in appeals<\/p>\n
before the Tribunal, three appeals were heard and decided by one<\/p>\n
Bench of the Tribunal and the last appeal was heard by a different<\/p>\n
Bench which took a view entirely different from the view taken by the<\/p>\n
ITA No.76\/2010 & conn.              6<\/span><\/p>\n
earlier Bench. In other words, both the Benches of the Tribunal issued<\/p>\n
divergent orders with regard to validity of assessments. Therefore, we<\/p>\n
have to only consider which order of the Tribunal is right. We notice<\/p>\n
that the later decision was rendered by the Tribunal in the order<\/p>\n
produced in I.T.A. No.76\/2010 which is the appeal filed by the assessee<\/p>\n
wherein the Tribunal has explained how the other Bench order of the<\/p>\n
Tribunal is not tenable. Therefore, we proceed to consider the said<\/p>\n
order issued by the Tribunal in I.T.A. No.207\/Coch\/2005 pertaining to<\/p>\n
the assessment of one of the partners Sri.Jose Cyriac.<\/p>\n
      4. Counsel appearing for both sides have referred to copy of the<\/p>\n
warrant issued in Form 45 produced in all the cases. We notice from<\/p>\n
the warrant issued in the case of assessee in I.T.A. No.76\/2010 that the<\/p>\n
authorisation was to search the office of “M\/s.Carbo Group of<\/p>\n
Concerns, Carbo House, 40\/168, Old Railway Station Road, Cochin-<\/p>\n
18” and also the residence of the appellant-assessee Jose Cyriac,<\/p>\n
Panamkuzhakal House, SRM Road, Cochin-18. On going through the<\/p>\n
other warrants produced in court, we notice that in all the warrants<\/p>\n
issued under Section 132 of the Act the place authorised to be searched<\/p>\n
ITA No.76\/2010 & conn.              7<\/span><\/p>\n
is the Group Head Office of the business concerns under the control of<\/p>\n
all the assessees and the residence of the partners named in the warrant.<\/p>\n
The first question to be considered is in the second round when the<\/p>\n
appeals were restored to the CIT (Appeals) by the Tribunal, whether<\/p>\n
the Commissioner (Appeals) was entitled to consider the question of<\/p>\n
validity of assessments based on the irregularity in the warrant alleged<\/p>\n
by the assessees. We find force in the contention of the counsel for the<\/p>\n
Revenue and the findings of the Tribunal in their order challenged in<\/p>\n
I.T.A. No.76\/2010 that the CIT (Appeals) while considering the<\/p>\n
appeals after remand by the Tribunal should consider the appeals based<\/p>\n
on the directions contained in the Tribunal’s order. It is to be noted that<\/p>\n
the assessees never contested the validity of the assessments on the<\/p>\n
ground of alleged irregularity in the warrant issued in the first round of<\/p>\n
appeal before the CIT (Appeals).        In the second stage when the<\/p>\n
Revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal against the orders of the CIT<\/p>\n
(Appeals) remanding the cases, though assessees filed cross objection<\/p>\n
challenging the validity of the assessments, the Tribunal did not<\/p>\n
consider the same because the same did not arise from orders of the<\/p>\n
ITA No.76\/2010 & conn.             8<\/span><\/p>\n
CIT (Appeals) challenged before the Tribunal.     In other words, the<\/p>\n
Tribunal while remanding the cases did not allow the assesees to raise<\/p>\n
an issue on the validity of assessments on ground of alleged defects in<\/p>\n
the warrant issued which was not the subject matter of first appeals<\/p>\n
filed before the CIT (Appeals).   Admittedly the remand orders issued<\/p>\n
by the Tribunal had become final and in the remand order Tribunal<\/p>\n
neither considered the validity of assessments nor included the same<\/p>\n
within the scope of remand for the CIT (Appeals) to consider the same<\/p>\n
when the matter reach him a second round after remand by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal. We, therefore, uphold the findings of the Tribunal in the<\/p>\n
order challenged in I.T.A. No.76\/2010 that the CIT (Appeals) had no<\/p>\n
jurisdiction to consider the validity of the assessments and he was<\/p>\n
authorised to consider only the assessment on merits i.e. about the<\/p>\n
income determined in assessment.\n<\/p>\n
      5. Even though we have upheld the order of the Tribunal on the<\/p>\n
lack of jurisdiction of the CIT (Appeals) to consider validity of<\/p>\n
assessments after remand by the Tribunal, both sides argued merits on<\/p>\n
the validity of the assessments as well. After verifying the entries in<\/p>\n
ITA No.76\/2010 & conn.              9<\/span><\/p>\n
the copies of search warrants produced, we have already noticed that in<\/p>\n
all the warrants the name of the assessees and the residential address of<\/p>\n
the assessees are given as place to be searched besides the Head Office<\/p>\n
of the Carbo group of concerns which was also authorised to be<\/p>\n
searched under the same warrant.     In our view, there is nothing wrong<\/p>\n
in authorising search of a group of concerns by a warrant issued under<\/p>\n
Section 132 of the Act. We have already stated in the beginning of the<\/p>\n
judgment the names of the firms and the companies whose Head Office<\/p>\n
address is shown in every warrant for search.       Very many business<\/p>\n
concerns which are assessed after search have in their name, the name<\/p>\n
“Carbo” and “Carbo” appears to be the common name forming part of<\/p>\n
the name of various business concerns of the related assessees.<\/p>\n
Assessees do not dispute that the address of the Head Office of the<\/p>\n
business concerns shown is not correct. Admittedly all the assessees<\/p>\n
have their Head Office in the same building, the address of which is<\/p>\n
fully given in the warrant. Besides the name of the group shown as<\/p>\n
Carbo Group of concerns in the warrant, every warrant contains the<\/p>\n
address of residential house of the assessee to be searched. In fact, it is<\/p>\n
ITA No.76\/2010 & conn.              10<\/span><\/p>\n
admitted that based on the search warrant issued the Head Office of the<\/p>\n
business concerns and the residences of the partners\/directors were<\/p>\n
searched and documents and records were recovered. Assessees have<\/p>\n
not chosen to challenge the validity of assessments on the allegation of<\/p>\n
defect or irregularity in the warrant issued either before the Assessing<\/p>\n
Officer or in first round of appeals and they have chosen to raise such a<\/p>\n
contention after remand before the CIT (Appeals) for the first time.<\/p>\n
We are in complete agreement with the finding of the Tribunal in their<\/p>\n
order challenged in I.T.A. No.76\/2010 that the CIT (Appeals) has no<\/p>\n
jurisdiction to entertain such a contention. Further, on merits also, we<\/p>\n
find no substance in the allegation of the assessees that the warrant is<\/p>\n
defective. In our view, the warrants issued are free from the defect<\/p>\n
alleged by the assessees. What is required to be stated in the warrant is<\/p>\n
precise details about the assessees and the persons to be searched which<\/p>\n
are contained in the warrants issued in these cases because the Group<\/p>\n
Head Office of all the business concerns and the residence of the<\/p>\n
persons in charge of business namely, partners and directors of the<\/p>\n
business concerns, were authorised to be searched. We, therefore, find<\/p>\n
ITA No.76\/2010 & conn.              11<\/span><\/p>\n
no merit in the assessees’ challenge against the validity of assessments.<\/p>\n
For the reasons stated above, we allow the Revenue’s appeals namely,<\/p>\n
I.T.A. Nos.684, 777 and 1168 of 2009 by vacating the orders of the<\/p>\n
Tribunal. Since the Tribunal has decided the merits on the additions in<\/p>\n
the order challenged in I.T.A. No.76\/2010, the said appeal filed by the<\/p>\n
assessee is dismissed. So far as the other appeals are concerned, since<\/p>\n
neither the CIT (Appeals) nor the Tribunal has considered the<\/p>\n
assessees’ challenge against the determination of income and additions<\/p>\n
made, the matter will stand remanded to the CIT(Appeals) for decision<\/p>\n
on merits i.e. pertaining to the income assessed based on the orders of<\/p>\n
remand issued by the Tribunal in the first round of appeals.<\/p>\n
                                    C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
\n                                    Judge<\/p>\n
                                    K.SURENDRA MOHAN
\n                                    Judge<\/p>\n
pms<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sri. Jose Cyriac vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 22 October, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ITA.No. 76 of 2010() 1. SRI. JOSE CYRIAC, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) For Respondent :SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29026","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri. Jose Cyriac vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 22 October, 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\/sri-jose-cyriac-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-22-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri. Jose Cyriac vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 22 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-jose-cyriac-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-22-october-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=\"2010-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-06T05:00:03+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\\\/sri-jose-cyriac-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-22-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-jose-cyriac-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-22-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri. Jose Cyriac vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 22 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-06T05:00:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-jose-cyriac-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-22-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2147,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-jose-cyriac-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-22-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-jose-cyriac-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-22-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-jose-cyriac-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-22-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Sri. Jose Cyriac vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 22 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-06T05:00:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-jose-cyriac-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-22-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-jose-cyriac-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-22-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-jose-cyriac-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-22-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri. Jose Cyriac vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 22 October, 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":"Sri. Jose Cyriac vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 22 October, 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\/sri-jose-cyriac-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-22-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri. Jose Cyriac vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 22 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-jose-cyriac-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-22-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-06T05:00:03+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\/sri-jose-cyriac-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-22-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-jose-cyriac-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-22-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri. Jose Cyriac vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 22 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-06T05:00:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-jose-cyriac-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-22-october-2010"},"wordCount":2147,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-jose-cyriac-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-22-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-jose-cyriac-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-22-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-jose-cyriac-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-22-october-2010","name":"Sri. Jose Cyriac vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 22 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-06T05:00:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-jose-cyriac-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-22-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-jose-cyriac-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-22-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-jose-cyriac-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-22-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri. Jose Cyriac vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 22 October, 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\/29026","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=29026"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29026\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29026"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29026"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29026"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}