{"id":34393,"date":"1998-09-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-09-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-of-vs-subhash-kumar-jain-on-2-september-1998"},"modified":"2016-03-23T01:48:34","modified_gmt":"2016-03-22T20:18:34","slug":"deputy-commissioner-of-vs-subhash-kumar-jain-on-2-september-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-of-vs-subhash-kumar-jain-on-2-september-1998","title":{"rendered":"Deputy Commissioner Of … vs Subhash Kumar Jain on 2 September, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Chandigarh<\/div>\n
Deputy Commissioner Of … vs Subhash Kumar Jain on 2 September, 1998<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1999 69 ITD 313 Chd<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
Mehta <\/p>\n
1. This appeal, filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A), dated 12-7-1991 for Assessment Year 1986-87.\n<\/p>\n
2. The relevant facts in brief are these. The assessee filed the return for assessment year 1986-87 on 14-10-1986 declaring total income of Rs. 4,44,740. Subsequently a revised return was filed on 12-1-1988 declaring total income of Rs. 6,44,680 which included inter alia income from lottery Rs. 4.00 lakhs not disclosed in the original return. The Assessing Officer made assessment vide order dated 16-3-1988 making inter alia an addition of Rs. 4.00 lakhs as income from undisclosed sources holding that the prize ticket has been purchased out of concealed income. The CIT(A) vide order dated 8-2-1989 upheld the addition. The matter went in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dated 27-11-1990 set aside the entire appellate order of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) has consequently passed the impugned order dated 12-7-1991 whereby the assessment has been annulled. The department is aggrieved against the said order hence present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
3. The main controversy centres around the addition of Rs. 4.00 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer holding that the prize winning ticket has been procured by the assessee out of the concealed income. A few facts may be indicated. The assessee disclosed a sum of Rs. 5.00 lakh as winning from Nagaland State Lottery in the 17th Draw held on 2-1-1986. The Assessee claimed that he had the First Prize Winning ticket bearing <\/p>\n
No. DU – 207139. The Assessing Officer recorded the statement of the assessee on 15-1-1988 wherein it was stated that lottery ticket was purchased from a hawker at Ludhiana. The Assessing Officer made enquiries and found that M\/s. Marwaha Agencies, R-831, New Rajindra Nagar, New Delhi are the organisers of Govt. Lottery of Nagaland which sponsored the Deluxe Everest Weekly Lottery for prizes over Rs. 39.00 lakhs out of which First Prize of Rs. 5.00 lakhs was claimed as winning by the assessee. The Assessing Officer traced the string of successive intermediate parties through whom the First Prize winning ticket passed after its issue by the organisers namely M\/s. Marwaha Agencies, M\/s. Marwaha Agencies sold 5000 tickets including the First Prize winning ticket to M\/s. Thaper Lottery Agency Prop. Trilok Singh on 24-12-1985 who further sold it to M\/s. V. Kumar Lottery Wala, New Delhi on the same day. M\/s. V. Kumar Lottery Wala further sold it to M\/s. B. S. A. Agencies Prop. Nirmal Singh on 24-12-1985 itself. Further M\/s. B. S. A. Agencies sold the ticket to Manjit Singh, 14\/27, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi on 25-12-1985. The Assessing Officer recorded the statements of Manjit Singh along with Nirmal Singh on 17-11-1987 wherein it was stated that the first prize winning ticket has been sold to some Sikh gentleman who was a retired employee of Punjab and Sind Bank, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. The Assessing officer further scrutinised the claims register of M\/s. Marwaha Agencies which contained the details of claims lodged with the organisers in respect of prize winning tickets. Certain discrepancies in this register were found by the Assessing Officer inasmuch as entry No. 165 which records the first prize claimed by the assessee, had been made by way of interpolation. An extract of the claims register has been annexed to the assessment order as Annexure ‘A’, on the basis of the aforesaid facts and evidence the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that first prize winning ticket has been procured by the assessee (out of his undisclosed income) much after the draw, held on 2-1-1986 and there fore an addition of Rs. 4.00 lakhs was made along with certain other additions while framing the assessment dated 16-3-1988.\n<\/p>\n
4. When the matter came up before the Tribunal against the earlier order of the CIT(A), dated 28-2-1989, it was argued on behalf of the assessee that statements of the witnesses recorded by the Assessing Officer at the back of the assessee as well as documents and records as relied upon by the Assessing Officer, have not been confronted and principles of natural justice have been violated. Relying upon the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Sham Lal [1981] 127 ITR 816, as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chelaram v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713, it was pleaded that the assessment made in gross violation of principles of natural justice is illegal and deserves to be quashed. Since the CIT(A) over looked to dispose off this important aspect relating to the addition of Rs. 4.00 lakhs while confirming the addition vide order dated 28-2-1989, the Tribunal vide its order dated 27-11-1990 set aside the order of the CIT(A) with these <\/p>\n
Observations :-\n<\/p>\n
 “We, therefore, do not touch upon smaller issues involved in this appeal and set aside her entire order with the directions that the above observations made by us should be taken note of and the issue of illegality of the assessment on account of violation or gross violation of the principles of natural justice be decided along with other matters afresh.’ <\/p>\n
While giving effect to the abovementioned order of the Tribunal, the learned CIT(A) has held that since the Assessing Officer had failed to allow opportunity to the assessee with regard to the statements recorded at the back of the assessee as well as the documents and evidence brought on record, the entire assessment is ab initio void. The learned CIT(A) accordingly annulled the entire assessment and did not go into the merits of various other additions made in the assessment.\n<\/p>\n
5. The learned DR, assailing the impugned order of the CIT(A), argued that the directions of the ITAT contained in its order dated 27-11-1990 have not been complied with by the CIT(A). According to the learned DR, the addition on account of lottery winning of Rs. 4.00 lakhs was not the only addition made in the impugned assessment in this case. There were other additions made on different and distinct grounds and lack of proper opportunity had not been alleged with regard to these additions. The learned DR emphasised that the entire assessment cannot be annulled merely on the basis of lack of opportunity with regard to one isolated ground particularly when adequate opportunity has been allowed to the assessee on all the remaining grounds dealt in the assessment. It is, further submitted that the matter with regard to addition of Rs. 4.00 lakhs could have been set aside by the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing opportunity to the assessee. On behalf of the department reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Kapoor Chand Shrimal v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451 and in the case of Kalra Glue Factory v. Sales Tax Tribunal<\/a> [1987] 167 ITR 498. With regard to the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sham Lal (supra) and Madras High Court in the case of Govt. of India v. Maxim A. Lobo [1991] 190 ITR 101, the learned DR argued that these decisions are based on entirely distinguishable set of facts and do not support the assessee’s case.\n<\/p>\n
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee strongly supported the order of learned CIT(A) and argued that any order passed by an authority without following the principles of natural justice is null and void. In support of this proposition, reliance has been placed on the decision of Madras High Court in V. Raju v. CIT [1984] 147 ITR 212.\n<\/p>\n
Further reliance is placed by the learned counsel on the following authorities :-\n<\/p>\n
(i) Shain Lal’s case (supra);\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Maxi A. Lobo’s case (supra);\n<\/p>\n
(iii) Diirga Iron & Steel Inds. v. ITO [1990] 35 ITD 166 (Chd.);\n<\/p>\n
(iv) Prenzier Breweries Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [1991] 36 ITD 197 (Cochin);\n<\/p>\n
According to the learned counsel once the addition of Rs. 4.00 lakhs is held to be illegal on the ground of violation of audi alteram partem rule, the entire assessment order is a nullity and has been rightly annulled by the learned CIT(A).\n<\/p>\n
7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the facts and the circumstances of the case as also rival submissions made before us. The basic issue which calls for consideration in the present appeal is whether denial of proper opportunity to the assessee with regard to any facet of the assessment would vitiate the entire assessment and make it ab initio void. In the instant case before us, the Assessing Officer while making the assessment has made additions on various grounds and it is only with regard to one single and isolated ground concerning the addition of Rs. 4.00 lakhs that denial of opportunity of hearing on the documents and records collected at the back of the assessee as well as the statements of witnesses recorded without the presence of the assessee, has been claimed by the assessee. The assessment made is admittedly within the jurisdiction and legal competency of the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment failed to comply with the provisions of section 142(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of addition of Rs. 4.00 lakhs since an opportunity of being heard in respect of material gathered by the Assessing Officer on the basis of an enquiry has not been given to the assessee. Section 142(3) essentially embodies the rule of audi alteram partem as a part of the procedure of assessment. Section 142(3) is essentially a procedural section which is directory in nature. In this view of the matter we hold that the assessment suffers from mere procedural irregularity which is curable. Non-observance of the provisions of a machinery section would not make the assessment void particularly when the infirmity of non-compliance with provisions of section 142(3) relates only to the addition of Rs. 4.00 lakhs and no such infirmity or irregularity exists with regard to various other additions which form the subject matter of the assessment. The procedural irregularity, which is curable in nature concerning one item of addition, would not in our opinion justifiably result in the whole hog cancellation of the impugned assessment as void. When the appellate authority notices such infirmity in any order, it has the jurisdiction as well as the duty to correct all errors in the proceedings under appeal and to issue, if necessary, appropriate, directions to the authority against whose decision the appeal is preferred to dispose off the whole or any part of the matter afresh. The two decisions of the Apex Court cited by the learned DR namely Kalra Glue Factory’s case (supra) and Kapoor Chand Shrimal’s case (supra), fully support the view being taken by us. In Kalra Glue Factory’s case (supra), the Sales Tax Tribunal relied in support of its order inter alia on the statement of a partner of another firm which had been recorded at the back of the assessee. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and remitted the matter to the Tribunal giving directions for fresh adjudication after allowing opportunity to the assessee. The facts of instant case before us are on all fours with the facts of the above cited case. In Kapoor Chand Shri Mal’s case (supra) the assessee (HUF) preferred claim of partition of the HUF in time, however, the Assessing Officer made the assessment on the HUF without holding the enquiry into the claim of partition and therefore, the orders of assessment were contrary to law. The Supreme Court held that proper order to be passed by the appellate authority in such case would be to set aside the assessment and to direct the ITO to make a fresh assessment in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. Both the decisions, relied upon by the learned DR, thus amply support the view that an assessment order involving utilization of material collected at the back of the assessee deserves to be set aside for fresh adjudication and such as an order cannot be struck down as ab initio void.\n<\/p>\n
8. We may now notice the decisions cited by the learned counsel. The first decision relied upon by the learned counsel is V. Raju’s case (supra). On going through this decision we find that the ratio of this decision runs contrary to the submissions of the learned counsel and lends direct support to the departments case. The facts of this case in brief are that the CIT passed orders under section 263 without giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The Madras High Court held that the order of the Commissioner suffers from a procedural irregularity and that the order cannot be treated as ab initio void and non est in the eyes of law. The High Court further held that the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the order with the direction that a fresh order be passed by the Commissioner after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The Court observed at Page 218 as under :-\n<\/p>\n
 “Thus, the statute itself has made a provision for an effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee before the Commissioner passes an order in revision under section 263. In this case, the Commissioner having passed an order without giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, can be taken to have infringed the statutory provision and, therefore, the order passed by him, suffers from procedural irregularity. In the face of section 263 in which the principles of natural justice have been embedded as a statutory procedure to be followed by the Commissioner before passing an order in his revisional jurisdiction, the order of the Commissioner in the present case suffers from procedural violation or irregularity and not from violation of abstract principles of natural justice. If the principles of natural justice are not embedded in the statute and those principles are found to have been violated, then the order can be said to be one passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. But where principles of natural justice are embedded in the statute as a statutory procedure, then there will be a violation of that statutory procedure if the officer has not followed that procedure. We cannot, therefore, see any error in the view taken by the Tribunal that this is a procedural irregularity and hence it is curable.”\n<\/p>\n
In coming to the aforesaid conclusion the High Court placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. National Taj Traders [1980] 121 ITR 535 and in Kapoor Chand Shri Mal’s case (supra). Thus V. Raju’s case (supra) lends direct support to the view being canvassed before us on behalf of the department and upheld by us.\n<\/p>\n
9. The next decision strongly relied upon by the learned counsel is Sham Lal’s case (supra). This is a case of re-assessment of an individual whereby the ITO included certain amounts in his income on the basis that he was partner in a firm. The matter went up in appeal and the learned AAC took the view that the assessee was not a partner in the said firm and that he was only an employee thereof. He also noticed that the ITO in support of his conclusion has relied upon certain evidence which had not been put to the assessee. The assessment were annulled by the learned AAC. The order has been upheld by the Tribunal and the High Court. This decision is clearly distinguishable on facts inasmuch as the appellate authority, on perusal of entire evidence on record had come to the categorical finding that the assessee was never a partner in the firm. The finding of fact has been upheld and thereby the assessments have been annulled. The High Court observed at Page 818 as under :-\n<\/p>\n
 “The AAC, after examining the whole material on the record and adjudging the merits of the case, recorded a categorical finding that Shri Sham Lal was never the partner in the firm and that Shri Bheem Singh and Dwarka Dass had implicated him and had shown him as a partner in order to reduce their tax liability during the settlement. The AAC, therefore, came to the conclusion on merits that Shri Sham Lal could not be treated as a partner in the firm. This finding of fact was affirmed by the Tribunal.”\n<\/p>\n
Thus the basic issue of legality of the entire assessment on the ground of denial of opportunity to the assessee was not the point in issue in Sham Lal’s case (supra) the assessments were annulled since there was no material on record to come to the conclusion that the assessee was a partner in the firm. This case, therefore, does not support the arguments of the learned counsel.\n<\/p>\n
10. The learned counsel has next relied upon the decision of Madras High Court in Maxim A. Lobo’s case (supra). In this case, the order for purchase of immovable property under section 269UD was quashed since the order was passed without recording reasons for it and without communicating the same to the affected party. The Court held that the mandatory requirements of section 269UD had been violated and therefore the impugned order was liable to be quashed. The decision is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the instant case.\n<\/p>\n
11. One of the decisions relied upon by the learned CIT(A) in support of his order may be referred to here. The CIT(A) has relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp. AIR<\/a> 1986 SC 180. We find that this decision renders no assistance whatsoever to the conclusion drawn by the learned CIT(A) holding the entire assessment as void. In this decision, the facts are that the Bombay Municipal Corp. passed orders for eviction of pavement dwellers and slum hutments dwellers from the public properties without affording any opportunity to the affected persons. The Supreme Court held that an opportunity of hearing should have been allowed by the Corporation in accordance with the principles of natural justice. However, the orders of the Corporation on this ground were not held as illegal. The Supreme Court observed at page 202 of the report :\n<\/p>\n
 “Normally we would have directed the Municipal Commissioner to afford an opportunity to the petitioners to show why the encroachments committed by them on pavements or footpaths should not be removed. But, the opportunity which was denied by the Commissioner was granted by us in an ample measure, both sides having made their contentions elaborately on facts as well as on law. Having considered those contentions, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner was justified in directing the removal of the encroachments committed by the petitioners on pavements, footpaths or accessory roads.”\n<\/p>\n
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion we are inclined to set aside the order of the CIT(A) with the direction to pass a fresh order adjudicating upon the grounds relating to the addition of Rs. 4.00 lakhs as well as other grounds raised by the assessee in his appeal. With regard to the facts and material concerning the ground relating to the addition of Rs. 4.00 lakhs in respect of which Assessing Officer did not afford opportunity to the assessee, the CIT(A) would allow specific opportunity to the assessee with regard to this material before coming to a conclusion in respect thereof. The various other grounds of appeal would also be considered afresh by the CIT(A) while passing a fresh order.\n<\/p>\n
12. In the result the order of the CIT(A) is set aside to be passed again in the light of aforesaid observations\/directions.\n<\/p>\n
13. In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Chandigarh Deputy Commissioner Of … vs Subhash Kumar Jain on 2 September, 1998 Equivalent citations: 1999 69 ITD 313 Chd ORDER Mehta 1. This appeal, filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A), dated 12-7-1991 for Assessment Year 1986-87. 2. The relevant facts in brief are these. […]<\/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":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-34393","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nDeputy Commissioner Of ... vs Subhash Kumar Jain on 2 September, 1998 - 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\/deputy-commissioner-of-vs-subhash-kumar-jain-on-2-september-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Deputy Commissioner Of ... vs Subhash Kumar Jain on 2 September, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-of-vs-subhash-kumar-jain-on-2-september-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-22T20:18:34+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-commissioner-of-vs-subhash-kumar-jain-on-2-september-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-commissioner-of-vs-subhash-kumar-jain-on-2-september-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Deputy Commissioner Of … vs Subhash Kumar Jain on 2 September, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-22T20:18:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-commissioner-of-vs-subhash-kumar-jain-on-2-september-1998\"},\"wordCount\":3303,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-commissioner-of-vs-subhash-kumar-jain-on-2-september-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-commissioner-of-vs-subhash-kumar-jain-on-2-september-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-commissioner-of-vs-subhash-kumar-jain-on-2-september-1998\",\"name\":\"Deputy Commissioner Of ... vs Subhash Kumar Jain on 2 September, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-22T20:18:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-commissioner-of-vs-subhash-kumar-jain-on-2-september-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-commissioner-of-vs-subhash-kumar-jain-on-2-september-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-commissioner-of-vs-subhash-kumar-jain-on-2-september-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Deputy Commissioner Of … vs Subhash Kumar Jain on 2 September, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"Deputy Commissioner Of ... vs Subhash Kumar Jain on 2 September, 1998 - 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\/deputy-commissioner-of-vs-subhash-kumar-jain-on-2-september-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Deputy Commissioner Of ... vs Subhash Kumar Jain on 2 September, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-of-vs-subhash-kumar-jain-on-2-september-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-22T20:18:34+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-of-vs-subhash-kumar-jain-on-2-september-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-of-vs-subhash-kumar-jain-on-2-september-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Deputy Commissioner Of … vs Subhash Kumar Jain on 2 September, 1998","datePublished":"1998-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-22T20:18:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-of-vs-subhash-kumar-jain-on-2-september-1998"},"wordCount":3303,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-of-vs-subhash-kumar-jain-on-2-september-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-of-vs-subhash-kumar-jain-on-2-september-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-of-vs-subhash-kumar-jain-on-2-september-1998","name":"Deputy Commissioner Of ... vs Subhash Kumar Jain on 2 September, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-22T20:18:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-of-vs-subhash-kumar-jain-on-2-september-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-of-vs-subhash-kumar-jain-on-2-september-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-of-vs-subhash-kumar-jain-on-2-september-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Deputy Commissioner Of … vs Subhash Kumar Jain on 2 September, 1998"}]},{"@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\/34393","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=34393"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34393\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34393"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34393"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34393"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}