{"id":35736,"date":"1975-12-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-12-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajantha-industries-and-ors-vs-central-board-of-direct-taxesnew-on-5-december-1975"},"modified":"2015-01-29T10:45:43","modified_gmt":"2015-01-29T05:15:43","slug":"ajantha-industries-and-ors-vs-central-board-of-direct-taxesnew-on-5-december-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajantha-industries-and-ors-vs-central-board-of-direct-taxesnew-on-5-december-1975","title":{"rendered":"Ajantha Industries And Ors vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes,New … on 5 December, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ajantha Industries And Ors vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes,New … on 5 December, 1975<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 437, \t\t 1976 SCR (2) 884<\/div>\n
Author: P Goswami<\/div>\n
Bench: Goswami, P.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nAJANTHA INDUSTRIES AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES,NEW DELHI & OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT05\/12\/1975\n\nBENCH:\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nBENCH:\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nMATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\n\nCITATION:\n 1976 AIR  437\t\t  1976 SCR  (2) 884\n 1976 SCC  (1)1001\n\n\nACT:\n     Income  Tax   Act,\t 1961-Section\t127(1)-Recording  of\nreasons\t and   communication\t thereof  is  mandatory-Non-\ncommunication to the assessee is violative of the principles\nof natural justice-Purport of recording of reasons.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The appellants  were assessees under the Income Tax Act\nunder the  jurisdiction of  the Income\tTax officer, Nellore\nsince a\t number of  years on 23-1-1973, the Central Board of\nDirect Taxes sent a notice to the appellants under s. 127(1)\nof the Income Tax Act proposing to transfer their case files\nfor facility  of investigations\" from the respective Income.\nTax Officer  Nellore to\t the Income  Tax Officer  'B'  Ward,\nSpecial Circle.\t II, Hyderabad and called for objections, if\nany, to\t the proposed  transfer within\tfifteen days  of the\nreceipt\t of   the  notice.   Despite  their  representations\nobjecting to  the transfer,  the Central  Board ordered\t the\ntransfer  on  26-7-1973.  The  validity\t of  the  order\t was\nquestioned before  the\tAndhra\tPradesh\t High  Court  by  an\napplication under  Article 226\tof the\tConstitution on\t the\nground\tof   violation\tof  principles\tof  natural  justice\ninasmuch as neither the reasons were given. nor communicated\nin the said order.\n     The writ  petition was  dismissed\tby  a  single  Judge\nholding that  mere failure  to communicate the reasons which\nwere found by him to have been recorded in the files, to the\nappellants was\tnot fatal.  The Letters Patent Appeal before\nthe Division  Bench failed.  Allowing the  appeal by special\nleave and rejecting the contentions of the Revenue. namely.\n     (a) that  the reasons  given in  the  notice  under  s.\n127(1)\tcalling\t  for  objections,   namely,  \"facility\t for\ninvestigations can be read a part of the impugn ed order.\n     (b) that recording of the reasons in the file, although\nnot  communicated   to\tthe   assessee,\t fully\t meets\t the\nrequirements of s. 127(1) and\n     (c) that  the orders  under s.  127 (1)  being  \"purely\nadministrative in  nature, it  was not necessary to give the\nassessee,  an\topportunity  to\t  be  heard  and  there\t was\nconsequently no need to record reasons for the transfer, the\nCourt\n^\n     HELD:(1) Unlike  s. 5(7A) of the 1922 Act, s. 127(1) of\nthe Income  Tax Act,  1961, requires  reasons to be recorded\nprior to  the passing of an order of transfer. Once an order\nis passed  transferring the  case file\tof  an\tassessee  to\nanother\t area,\t the   order   has   to\t  be   communicated.\nCommunication  of  the\torder  is  an  absolutely  essential\nrequirement since  the assessee\t is  then  immediately\tmade\naware of the reasons which impelled the, authorities to pass\nthe order  of transfer.\t The  Legislature  has\timposed\t the\nrequirements of\t show-cause notice  and\t also  recording  of\nreasons to  avoid a  great deal\t of  inconvenience  and\t the\nmonetary loss  if a  case file is transferred from the usual\nplace of  residence or\toffice where  originally assessments\nare made to a distant place. [888A, 889A-B]\n     (2) The  reason for  recording of\treasons in the order\nand making  these reasons  known is to enable an opportunity\nto the\tassessee to  approach the  High Court under its writ\njurisdiction under  Article 226\t of the Constitution or even\nthe Supreme  Court under  Article 136 of the Constitution in\nan appropriate\tcase for  challenging the order, inter alia,\neither on the ground it is mala fide or arbitrary or that it\nis  based   on\tirrelevant  and\t extraneous  considerations,\nirrespective of\t the result  of such a writ or special leave\napplication. [889C-D]\n885\n     (3) Recording  of reasons and disclosure thereof is not\na mere formality. The requirement of recording reasons under\ns. 127\t(1) of\tthe Income  Tax Act is a mandatory direction\nunder the  law and non-communication thereof is not saved by\nshowing that  the reasons  exist in  the files\talthough not\ncommunicated to the assessee. [889-E]\n     Pannalal Binjraj  and Another v. The Union of India and\nOthers,<\/a> [1957] 31 I.T.R. 565, applied.\n     Sunanda Rani  Jain v. Union of India and Others, [1975]\n99 I.T.R. 391, overruled.\n     Shri Pragdas Umar Vaishya v. Union of India and others,\n[1967] 12 Madhya Pradesh Journal 868, discussed.\n     (4) When  law requires  reasons to\t be  recorded  in  a\nparticular order affecting prejudicially the interest of any\nperson, who  can challenges the order in Court, it ceases to\nbe a  mere administrative order and the vice of violation of\nthe principles\tof natural justice on account of omission to\ncommunicate the reasons is not expiated. [890-C]\n     Kashiram Aggarwalla  v.  Union  of\t India\tand  others<\/a>,\n[1965] 56 I.T.R. 14, not applicable.\n     S. Narayanappa  and others\t v. Commissioner  of Income-<\/a>\ntax, Bangalore, [1967] 63 I.T.R. 219, distinguished.\n     (5)  In  the  insant  case,  non-communication  of\t the\nreasons in  the order  passed under  s. 127(1) of the Income\nTax Act,  1961 is a serious infirmity in the order and it is\ninvalid. [890-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 724 of
\n1975.\n<\/p>\n
     (Appeal by\t Special Leave\tfrom the  judgment and order
\ndated the  12th September,  1974 of  the Andhra Pradesh High
\nCourt at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 626. of 1974)
\n     A. Subba Rao for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     G. C. Sharma and S.P. Nayar for the respondents.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     GOSWAMI, J.  The appellant\t No. 1\tis a registered firm
\nand appellants\t2 and  3 are  the only\ttwo partners of that
\nfirm. They  are assessees  under the  Income-tax Act.  Their
\nassessments have  been made for a number of years in Nellare
\nDistrict in  the usual\tcourse. On  January  23,  1973,\t the
\nCentral Board) sent a notice to the appellants under section
\n127 of\tthe Income-tax\tAct, 1961 brietly the Act) proposing
\nto transfer their case files “for facility of investigation”
\nfrom the  respective Income-tax\t Officer at  Nellore to\t the
\nIncome-tax Officer, B Ward Special Circle Ii, Hyaderabad, By
\nthis notice  they were\talso asked  to submit  in writing if
\nthey had  any objection\t to the\t proposed transfer within 15
\ndays of\t receipt of  the notice.  The appellants  made their
\nrepresentation objecting  to the  transfer and\ton July\t 26,
\n1973,  the   Central  Board   passed  the   impugned   order
\ntransferring the cases from Nellore to Hyderabad.\n<\/p>\n
     There is  no provison  of appeal  or revision under the
\nAct  against   such  orders  of\t transfer.  The\t appellants,
\ntherefore, preferred an application under article 226 of the
\nConstitution before the High Court of
\n886<\/span>
\nAndhra Pradesh questioning the validity of the order chiefly
\non the\tground of  violation of\t the principles\t of  natural
\njustice inasmuch  as no\t reasons were given nor communicated
\nin the\tsaid order.  The learned  single Judge\tafter having
\ncalled for the relevant file found that certain reasons were
\nrecorded by  the Central  Board prior  to the passing of the
\nimpugned order and held that mere failure to communicate the
\nreasons to  the appellants  was not  fatal to the order. The
\nwrit petition was, therefore, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     The  appellants’\tLetters\t Patent\t Appeal\t before\t the
\nDivision Bench\tof the\tHigh Court  also met  with the\tsame
\nfate. Hence this appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
     The short\tquestion that  arises for  consideration  is
\nwhether failure to record the reasons in the order which was
\ncommunicated  to   the\tappellants   is\t violative   of\t the
\nprinciples of  natural justice for which the order should be
\nheld to be invalid.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 5(7A)  was the  corresponding  section  in\t the
\nIncome-tax Act,\t 1922 (briefly the old Act). The section may
\nbe set out:\n<\/p>\n
     “The Commissioner\tof Income-tax  may transfer any case
\n     from one  Income-tax  Officer  subordinate\t to  him  to
\n     another, and  the Central Board of Revenue may transfer
\n     any case  from any\t one Income-tax\t Officer to another.
\n     Such  transfer   may  be  made  at\t any  stage  of\t the
\n     proceedings, and  shall not  render necessary  the\t re-
\n     issue of  any notice  already issued  by the Income-tax
\n     Officer from whom the case is transferred”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The successor  section under  the Income-tax  Act,  1961  is
\nsection 127 and the same may be set out:\n<\/p>\n
     “Transfer of  cases  from\tone  Income-tax\t Officer  to
\nanother:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  (1)  The  Commissioner   may,\t after\t giving\t the
\n\t       assessee a  reasonable opportunity  of  being
\n\t       heard in\t the matter, wherever it is possible
\n\t       to do so, and after recording his reasons for
\n\t       doing so, transfer any case from one In come-
\n\t       tax Officer  subordinate to  him\t to  another
\n\t       also subordinate\t to him,  and the  Board may
\n\t       similarly transfer  any case from one Income-
\n\t       tax Officer to another.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be
\n\t       deemed to  require any such opportunity to be
\n\t       given where  the transfer is from one Income-
\n\t       tax Officer  to\tanother\t whose\toffices\t are
\n\t       situated in the same city, locality or place.
\n\t  (2)  The transfer  of a case under sub-section (1)
\n\t       may be  made at any stage of the proceedings,
\n\t       and shall  not render  necessary the re-issue
\n\t       of any notice already issue by the Income-tax
\n\t       Officer from whom the case is transferred.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
887<\/span><\/p>\n
     Explanation:-In this  section and\tin sections  121 and
\n125, the word ‘case’ in relation to any person whose name is
\nspecified in any order or direction issued thereunder, means
\nall proceedings\t under this Act in respect of any year which
\nmay be\tpending on  the date  of such  order or direction or
\nwhich may  have been  completed on  or before such date, and
\nincludes also  all proceedings\tunder this  Act which may be
\ncommenced after\t the date  of such  order  or  direction  in
\nrespect of any year”.\n<\/p>\n
The section  was amended  by section  27 of  Finance (No. 2)
\nAct, 1967, and section 127 since then stands as under:\n<\/p>\n
     (1) “The  Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a
\n     reasonable opportunity  of being  heard in\t the matter,
\n     where ever it is possible to do so, and after recording
\n     his reasons  for doing  so, transfer  any case from any
\n     Income-tax Officer\t or officers also subordinate to him
\n     and the  Board may similarly transfer any case from any
\n     Income-tax Officer\t or Income-tax Officers to any other
\n     Income-tax Officer or Income-tax Officers.
\n\t  Provided that\t nothing in this subsection shall be
\n     deemed to\trequire any  such opportunity  to  be  given
\n     where the\ttransfer is  from any Income-tax  Officer or
\n     Income-tax Officers  to any other Income-tax Officer or
\n     Income-tax Officers and the offices of all such Income-
\n     tax Officers are situated in the same city, locality or
\n     place:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided further  that where\tany  case  has\tbeen
\n     transferred from  any Income-tax  officer or Income-tax
\n     Officers  to  two\tor  more  Income-tax  Officers,\t the
\n     Income-taxers to  whom the case is so transferred shall
\n     have concurrent  jurisdiction over\t the case  and shall
\n     perform such  functions in relation to the said case as
\n     the Board\tor the\tCom- missioner\t(or  any  Inspecting
\n     Assistant Commissioner  authorised by  the Commissioner
\n     in this  behalf) may,  by general\tor special  order in
\n     writing, specify for the distribution and allocation of
\n     the work to be performed”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (2)  The transfer  of a  case under subsection (1)
\n\t       may be  made at any stage of the proceedings,
\n\t       and shall not render necessary the reissue of
\n\t       any notice  already issued  by the Income-tax
\n\t       Officer or  Income-tax Officers from whom the
\n\t       case is transferred.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Explanation:-In this  section and in sections 121, 123,
\n124 and 125, the word ‘case’ in relation to any person whose
\nname  is   specified  in   any\torder  or  direction  issued
\nthereunder means  all proceedings  under this Act in respect
\nof any\tyear which  may be pending on the date of such order
\nor direction  or which\tmay have been completed on or before
\nsuch date, and includes also all proceedings under this
\n888<\/span>
\nAct which  may be commenced, after the date of such order or
\ndirection in respect of any year.”\n<\/p>\n
     Unlike-section 5(7A) section 127(1) requires reasons to
\nbe recorded  prior to  the passing  of an order of transfer.
\nThe impugned order does not state any reasons whatsoever for
\nmaking the order of transfer.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  submitted on behalf of the Revenue by Mr. Sharma
\nthat reasons  were communicated\t to  the  assessees  in\t the
\nnotice calling\tfor objection against the proposed transfer.
\nIt is,\ttherefore, manifest  that the  reasons given in that
\nshow cause  notice, namely,  “facility of investigation” can
\nbe read as a part of the impugned order although there is no
\nmention of any reasons therein as such.\n<\/p>\n
     We are  unable to accede to this submission. It appears
\nsection 5(7A)  of the  old Act\tcame  for  consideration  in
\nPannalal Binjraj  and Another  vs. The\tUnion of  India\t and
\nothers and<\/a> this Court observed at page 589 as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “……it would  be prudent  if the  principles of
\n     natural  justice\tare  followed,\twhere  circumstances
\n     permit, before  any order\tof  transfer  under  section
\n     5(7A) of the Act is made by the Commissioner of Income-
\n     tax or  the Central   Board of Revenue, as the case may
\n     be, and notice is given to the party affected and he is
\n     afforded a\t reasonable opportunity\t of representing his
\n     views on  the question and the reasons of the order are
\n     reduced however  briefly  to  writing…  There  is  no
\n     presumption against  the bona fide or the honesty of an
\n     assessee and  normally the Income-tax authorities would
\n     not  be   justified  in   refusing\t to  an\t assessee  a
\n     reasonable opportunity  of representing  his views when
\n     any order to the prejudice of the normal procedure laid
\n     down in  Section 64(1) and (2) of the  Act is sought-to
\n     be made  against him, be it a transfer from one Income-
\n     tax Officer  to another  within their  State or from an
\n     Income-tax officer\t with in  the State to an Income-tax
\n     Officer without  it, except  of course  where the\tvery
\n     object of\tthe transfer  would be\tfrustrated if notice
\n     was given\tto the\tparty affected.\t If the\t reasons for
\n     making the\t order reduced however briefly to writing it
\n     will  also\t  help\tthe  assessee  in  appreciating\t the
\n     circumstances which  make it necessary or desirable for
\n     the Commissioner  of Income-tax or the Central Board of
\n     Revenue, as the case may be, to transfer his case under
\n     section 5(7A)  of the  Act and  it will  also help\t the
\n     Court in  deter mining  the bona  fides of the order as
\n     passed if\tand when  the same is challenged in Court as
\n     mala fide or discriminatory. It is to be hoped that the
\n     Income-tax authorities will observe the above procedure
\n     wherever feasible”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     This judgment  was rendered  by this  Court on December
\n21, 1956,  and we  find that  in the  1961 Act\tsection\t 127
\nreplaced section 5(7A)
\n889<\/span>
\nwhere  the  legislature\t has  introduced,  inter  alia,\t the
\nrequirement of\trecording reasons  in making  the  order  of
\ntransfer. It  is manifest  that\t once  an  order  is  passed
\ntransferring the  case file  of an  assessee to another area
\nthe order has to be communicated. Communication of the order
\nis an absolutely essential requirement since the assessee is
\nthen immediately  made are of the reasons which impelled the
\nauthorities to\tpass the order transfer. It is apparent that
\nif a  case file\t is transferred\t from  the  usual  place  of
\nresidence or office where ordinarily assessments are made to
\na distant  area, a  great deal\tof  inconvenience  and\teven
\nmonetary loss  is involved,  That is  the reason  why before
\nmaking an  order of  transfer the legislature has ordinarily
\nimposed the  requirement of  a show-cause  notice  and\talso
\nrecording of  reasons. The  question then arises whether the
\nreasons are  at all  required  to  be  communicated  to\t the
\nassessee. It  is submitted,  on behalf\tof the Revenue, that
\nthe very  fact\tthat  reasons  are  recorded  in  the  file,
\nalthough these\tare not\t communicated to the assessee, fully
\nmeets the  requirement section\t127(1). We   are  unable  to
\naccept this submission.\n<\/p>\n
     The reason\t for recording\tof reasons  in the order and
\nmaking these  reasons known  to the assessee is to enable an
\nopportunity to the assessee to approach the High Court under
\nits writ jurisdiction under article 226 of  the Constitution
\nor even\t this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution in
\nan appropriate\tcase for  challenging the order, inter alia,
\neither on  the ground  that it\tis based  on irrelevant\t and
\nextraneous condonations Whether such a writ or special leave
\napplication ultimately\tfails is not relevant for a decision
\nof the question
\n     We are  clearly of\t opinion  that\tthe  requirement  of
\nrecording  reasons  under  section  127(1)  is\ta  mandatory
\ndirection under the law and non-communication thereof is not
\nsaved by showing that the reasons exist in the file although
\nnot communicated to the assessee.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Sharma\t drew our  attention to\t a decision  of\t the
\nDelhi High  Court in Sunanda Rani Jain vs Union of India and
\nothers, where  the learned single Judge has taken a contrary
\nview. For the reasons, which we have given above, we have to
\nhold that the said decision is not correct.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  drew our attention to a decision of this
\nCourt in  Shri Pragdas\tUmar Vaishya  vs.Union of  India and
\nOther where  rule 55  of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960,
\nproviding for  exercise of reversional power by the  Central
\nGovernment was\tnoticed. It  was held that under rule 55 the
\nCentral Government  in disposing of the revision application
\nmust record its reasons and communicate these reasons to the
\nparties affected  thereby. It  was  further  held  that\t the
\nreasons could not be gathered from the nothings in the files
\nof  the\t  Central  Government.\t Recording  of\treasons\t and
\ndisclosure thereof is not a mere formality.\n<\/p>\n
890<\/span><\/p>\n
     Mr. Sharma\t drew our  attention to\t a decision  of this
\nCourt in Kashiran Aggarwalalla vs. Union of India and other.
\nIt is  submitted that  this Court  took the view that orders
\nunder section  127(1) are held in that decision to be purely
\nadministrative\tin   nature”  passed  for  consideration  of
\nconvenience and\t no possible  prejudice could be involved in
\nthe transfer.  It was  also  held  therein  that  under\t the
\nproviso to  section 127(1)  it was not necessary to give the
\nappellant  an\topportunity  to\t  be  heard  and  there\t was
\nconsequently no\t need to  record reasons  for the  transfer.
\nThis decision is not of any assistance to the Revenue in the
\npresent case  since that  was a transfer from one Income-tax
\nOfficer to  another Income-tax Officer in the same city, or,
\nas stated  in the judgment itself, in the same locality” and
\nthe proviso to section 127(1), therefore, applied.\n<\/p>\n
     When  law\t requires  reasons   to\t be  recorded  in  a
\nparticular order  affecting prejudicially  the interests  of
\nany person,  who can challenge the order in court, it ceases
\nto be  a mere administrative order and the vice of violation
\nof the\tprinciples of natural justice on account of omission
\nto communicate the reasons is not expiated
\n     Mr. Sharma\t also drew  our attention  to a\t decision of
\nthis Court  in S  Narayanappa and Others vs. Commissioner of
\nIncome-tax, Bangalore<\/a>  where this  Court  was  dealing\twith
\nsection 34  of the  old Act.  It is  clear that\t there is no
\nrequirement in\tany of\tthe provisions\tof the\tAct  or\t any
\nsection laying down as a condition for the initiation of the
\nproceedings that  the reasons which induced the Commissioner
\nto accord  sanction to proceed under section 34 must also be
\ncommunicated to\t the assessee.\tThe Income-tax\tOfficer need
\nnot communicate to the assessee the reasons which led him to
\ninitiate the   proceedings  under section 34. The case under
\nsection\t 34  is\t clearly  distinguishable  from\t that  of  a
\ntransfer order\tunder section  127(1) of  the Act.  When  an
\norder under  section 34\t is made  the aggrieved assessee can
\nagitate the  matter in\tappeal against the assessment order,
\nbut an\tassessee against  whom an  order of transfer is made
\nhas no\tsuch remedy  under the\tAct to question the order of
\ntransfer. Besides,  the aggrieved assessee on receipt of the
\nnotice under  section 34  may even  satisfy  the  Income-tax
\nOfficer\t that  there  were  no\treasons\t for  reopening\t the
\nassessment. Such  an opportunity  is  not  available  to  an
\nassesse under  section 127(1) of the Act. The above decision
\nis, therefore, clearly distinguishable.\n<\/p>\n
     We\t are,\ttherefore,  clearly  of\t opinion  that\tnon-
\ncommunication of  the reasons  in  the\torder  passed  under
\nsection 127(1) is a serious infirmity in the order for which
\nthe same  is invalid.  The judgment of the High Court is set
\naside. The  appeal is allowed and the orders of transfer are
\nquashed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n891<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ajantha Industries And Ors vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes,New … on 5 December, 1975 Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 437, 1976 SCR (2) 884 Author: P Goswami Bench: Goswami, P.K. PETITIONER: AJANTHA INDUSTRIES AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES,NEW DELHI & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT05\/12\/1975 BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-35736","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAjantha Industries And Ors vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes,New ... on 5 December, 1975 - 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\/ajantha-industries-and-ors-vs-central-board-of-direct-taxesnew-on-5-december-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ajantha Industries And Ors vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes,New ... on 5 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajantha-industries-and-ors-vs-central-board-of-direct-taxesnew-on-5-december-1975\" \/>\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=\"1975-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-29T05:15:43+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\\\/ajantha-industries-and-ors-vs-central-board-of-direct-taxesnew-on-5-december-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajantha-industries-and-ors-vs-central-board-of-direct-taxesnew-on-5-december-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ajantha Industries And Ors vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes,New … on 5 December, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-29T05:15:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajantha-industries-and-ors-vs-central-board-of-direct-taxesnew-on-5-december-1975\"},\"wordCount\":2510,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajantha-industries-and-ors-vs-central-board-of-direct-taxesnew-on-5-december-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajantha-industries-and-ors-vs-central-board-of-direct-taxesnew-on-5-december-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajantha-industries-and-ors-vs-central-board-of-direct-taxesnew-on-5-december-1975\",\"name\":\"Ajantha Industries And Ors vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes,New ... on 5 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-29T05:15:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajantha-industries-and-ors-vs-central-board-of-direct-taxesnew-on-5-december-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajantha-industries-and-ors-vs-central-board-of-direct-taxesnew-on-5-december-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajantha-industries-and-ors-vs-central-board-of-direct-taxesnew-on-5-december-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ajantha Industries And Ors vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes,New … on 5 December, 1975\"}]},{\"@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":"Ajantha Industries And Ors vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes,New ... on 5 December, 1975 - 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\/ajantha-industries-and-ors-vs-central-board-of-direct-taxesnew-on-5-december-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ajantha Industries And Ors vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes,New ... on 5 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajantha-industries-and-ors-vs-central-board-of-direct-taxesnew-on-5-december-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-29T05:15:43+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\/ajantha-industries-and-ors-vs-central-board-of-direct-taxesnew-on-5-december-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajantha-industries-and-ors-vs-central-board-of-direct-taxesnew-on-5-december-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ajantha Industries And Ors vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes,New … on 5 December, 1975","datePublished":"1975-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-29T05:15:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajantha-industries-and-ors-vs-central-board-of-direct-taxesnew-on-5-december-1975"},"wordCount":2510,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajantha-industries-and-ors-vs-central-board-of-direct-taxesnew-on-5-december-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajantha-industries-and-ors-vs-central-board-of-direct-taxesnew-on-5-december-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajantha-industries-and-ors-vs-central-board-of-direct-taxesnew-on-5-december-1975","name":"Ajantha Industries And Ors vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes,New ... on 5 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-29T05:15:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajantha-industries-and-ors-vs-central-board-of-direct-taxesnew-on-5-december-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajantha-industries-and-ors-vs-central-board-of-direct-taxesnew-on-5-december-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajantha-industries-and-ors-vs-central-board-of-direct-taxesnew-on-5-december-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ajantha Industries And Ors vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes,New … on 5 December, 1975"}]},{"@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\/35736","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=35736"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35736\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35736"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35736"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35736"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}