{"id":520,"date":"1969-02-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-02-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-d-m-r-m-m-r-m-muthiah-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-february-1969"},"modified":"2017-03-12T03:32:12","modified_gmt":"2017-03-11T22:02:12","slug":"v-d-m-r-m-m-r-m-muthiah-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-february-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-d-m-r-m-m-r-m-muthiah-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-february-1969","title":{"rendered":"V.D. M. R. M. M. R. M. Muthiah … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 14 February, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
V.D. M. R. M. M. R. M. Muthiah … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 14 February, 1969<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 10, \t\t 1969 SCR (3) 715<\/div>\n
Author: S C.<\/div>\n
Bench: Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nV.D. M. R. M. M. R. M. MUTHIAH CHETTIAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n14\/02\/1969\n\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nGROVER, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1970 AIR   10\t\t  1969 SCR  (3) 715\n 1969 SCC  (1) 675\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1970 SC1982\t (11)\n RF\t    1980 SC2114\t (4)\n F\t    1987 SC1768\t (4,5)\n\n\nACT:\nIndian\tincome-tax  Act\t (11 of 1922),\tss.  34\t and  16(3)-\nAssessee's  return of income as individual not showing\tthat\nother  members\tof his firm were his  minor  sons-Income  of\nminors\t separately  assessed-S.  34(1)\t and  s.   34(1)(b),\napplicability of income of a minor son whether can be  added\nunder\ts.  16(3)-income  of  assessee\tafter  having\tbeen\nseparately assessed.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe assessee and his minor sons separately held shares in  a\nresident firm.\tFor assessment years 1952-53 to 1954-55, the\nassessee  filed returns as an individual and therein  stated\nunder  the  head business income that the profit  should  be\nascertained from the Income-tax Officer assessing the  firm.\nThe names of the partners were stated, but it was not stated\nin the return that some of the parties were his minor  sons.\nThe  minors,  through their mother as guardian,\t also  filed\nreturns\t for these assessment years, and they were  assessed\nto tax.\t The assessee was also assessed as an individual, in\nrespect\t of  his share in the income of the firm  and  other\nsources, but the assessment order did not include the  share\nof the minors from the firm.  The Income-tax Officer  issued\nnotices\t of reassessment to the assessee under s. 34(1)\t (a)\nof the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 for the years 1952-53 and\n1953-54\t and under s. 34(1) (b) for the year  1954-55.\t The\nIncome-tax  Officer took the view that the assessee had\t not\ndisclosed the fact that his sons were minors and the  income\nof  the sons which should have been included under s.  16(3)\n(a) (ii) had escaped assessment in the assessee's hands\t and\naccordingly  he brought that income to tax.   The  Appellate\nAssistant Commissioner confirmed this order.  The  Appellate\nTribunal,  in appeal held that for the first two,  years  s.\n34(1) (a) applied, that in respect of the third year  there\nwas  no\t change of opinion but the assessment  was  made  on\ninformation received within the meaning of s. 34(1) (b)\t and\nthat the income of the minors could be assessed in the hands\nof  the assessee 'notwithstanding the  separate\t assessments\nalready\t made on the minors.  On reference, the\t High  Court\nanswered  the  questions against the assessee.\t In  appeal,\nthis Court,\nHELD  : Section 16(3) of the Act imposed an obligation\tupon\nthe  Income-tax Officer to compute the total income  of\t any\nindividual  for the purpose of assessment by  including\t the\nitems of income set out in cls. (a)(i) to (iv) and (b),\t but\nthereby\t no  obligation was imposed upon  the  tax-payer  to\ndisclose the income liable to be included in his  assessment\nunder  s. 16(3).  For failing or omitting to  disclose\tthat\nincome\tproceedings for reassessment could not be  commenced\nunder s. 34(1) (a).  Section 22(5) required the assessee  to\nfurnish\t particulars  of  the names of\tthe  shares  of\t the\npartners but imposed no obligation to mention or set out the\nincome of the nature mentioned in s. 16(3).  In the relevant\nyears  there  was no head in the form of  return  prescribed\nunder the rules under which income liable to be assessed  to\ntax  under  s. 16(3) (a) & (b) could  be  disclosed.   These\nassessments  under  s. 34(1) (a) for the years\t1952-53\t and\n1953-54 could not, therefore be upheld. [721 A]\n(ii) The  income of a minor can be included in the hands  of\nan assessee under s. 16(3) of the Act, notwithstanding\tthat\nan assessment has been made on the minor represented by\t his\nguardian. [718 G-H]\n716\nC.R. Nagappa v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore,<\/a> [1969] 1\nS.C.R. 979, followed.\n(iii)\t  In respect of the assessment years 1954-55,  there\nwas  no basis for the argument that the\t Income-tax  Officer\nhad  only changed his opinion.\tThe order  of  re-assessment\nwas  made well within four years from the date of  the\tlast\nday  of\t that assessment year.\tThe notice  was,  therefore,\ncompetently issued by the Income-tax Officer.  L721 F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:Civil Appeals Nos. 1457 to 1459
\nof 1958.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals from the judgment and order dated August 21, 1964 of
\nthe Madras High Court in T.C. No. 75 of 1962 (Reference\t No.
\n50 of 1962).\n<\/p>\n
M.   C. Chagla and T. A. Ramachandran, for the appellant (in
\nall the appeals).\n<\/p>\n
S.   K.\t Aiyar add B. D. Sharma, for the respondent (in\t all
\nthe appeals).\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n Shah,\tJ.  Ramanathan\tChettiar his  son  Muthiah  Chettiar
\ncalled\thereinafter  for the sake of  brevity,\tMuthiah–and
\nRamanathan,  Annamalai\tand  Alagappan,\t sons  of   Muthiah,
\nconstituted  a Hindu undivided family.\tThe family  owned  a
\n3\/5th share in M.R.M.S. Firm, Seramban in Malaya.  The\tfirm
\nwas  assessed under the Indian income-tax Act, 1922, in\t the
\nstatus\tof a firm resident within the  taxable\tterritories.
\nOn  September  16, 1950, Muthiah separated from\t the  family
\ntaking\this 1\/5th share in the M.R.M.S. Firm.  On April\t 13,
\n1951  the status of the family became  completely  disrupted
\nand  the  three\t sons of Muthiah took in  equal\t shares\t the
\nremaining  2\/5th share-the grandfather Ramanathan taking  no
\nshare in the M.R.M.S. Firm.\n<\/p>\n
For the assessment year 1952-53 Muthiah submitted a  return
\nof  his\t income as an individual and stated under  the\thead
\nbusiness income “Kindly ascertain his (assessee’s) share  of
\nprofit\tand remittances from the Income-tax officer,  Second
\nAdditional  Circle I, Karaikudi, in F. 6098-m\/1952-53”.\t  In
\nPart  III  of  the return  Muthiah  supplied  the  following
\ninformation about his partners
\nName and address of   Name of each partner\t Share
\nthe firm\t   including assessee
\nMessrs. R.RM.S. Firm 1. Assessee (Muthiah Chettiar) 60\/303
\nSeramban, F. M.S.    2. VD.  M.RM. M. RM.  M.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     Ramanathan Chettiar (minor).   40\/303\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     3.\t VD. M. RM.  M. RM.  M.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       Alagappan Chettiar (minor).   40\/303\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     4.\t VD. M. RM.  M. RM.  M.<\/p>\n
\n\t\t\tAnnamalai Chettiar (minor)   40\/303\n\t\t     5. C.P.R.\t\t\t     60\/303\n\t\t     6. M.S.S.\t\t\t     60\/303\n\t\t     7. Charity\t\t\t      3\/303\n717<\/span>\n<\/pre>\n
For the assessment year 1953-54 in column 3 in section B  of
\nthe   return   Muthiah\tstated\t:  “Kindly   ascertain\t the
\nremittances  from the Income-tax Officer, Fifth\t Additional,
\nKaraikudi in F. 6098-m”, and at p. 3 of the return in column
\n3 of Section F it was stated
\n\t      “Assessee\t has 60\/303 share in Messrs.   Joint
\n\t      Seramban (Malaya).  Kindly ascertain share  of
\n\t      profit  or loss from the\tIncome-tax  Officer,
\n\t      Fifth Additional, Karaikudi in F. 6098.”
\n\t      In Part III of the return he set out the names
\n\t      of  the  partners as, were  mentioned  in\t the
\n\t      return  for  1952-53.  Against the  names.  of
\n\t      Ramanathan  Chettiar, Alagappan  Chettiar\t and
\n\t      Annamalai\t Chettiar it was not disclosed\tthat
\n\t      they were minors.\n<\/p>\n
\t      For the assessment year 1954-55 at the foot of
\n\t      page 1 of the return Muthiah stated :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The   assessee  has  a  remittance   of\t Rs.\n<\/p>\n
\t      6,188-12-0 from R.R.M.S. Firm, Seramban.\t His
\n\t      share  of income may be taken from the  firm’s
\n\t      file.’,
\nand in Part III the names of seven partners as mentioned  in
\n1952-53 return were set-out–Ramanathan, Alagappan, were not
\nshown as minors.\n<\/p>\n
Ramanathan,  Alagappan and Aannamalai–the three minor\tsons
\nof  Muthiah  represented by their mother and  guardian\talso
\nfiled returns of their respective income for the years 1952-
\n53,  1953-54 and 1954-55 and disclosed therein their  shares
\nin the profit from the 2\/5th share in the M.RM.S. Firm.
\nFor  the assessment years 1952-53, 1953-54 and\t1954-55\t the
\nIncome-tax  officer completed the assessments separately  on
\nthe  firm,  on\tMuthiah as an individual and  on  the  three
\nminors\trepresented by their mother and\t guardian.   Muthiah
\nwas  assessed in respect of his share in the income  of\t the
\nfirm and from other sources.  In his returns muthiah had not
\ndisclosed  the\tshare  received by his minor  sons  and\t the
\nIncome-tax officer did not in making the assessments include
\nshares of the minors from the firm under s. 16 (3) (a)\t(ii)
\nof the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.  The Income-tax  Officer
\nissued notices of reassessment to Muthiah under s. 34(1) (a)
\nof the Income-tax Act, 1922 for the years 1952-53 and  1953-
\n54  and under s. 34(1) (b) for the year\t 1954-55.   Muthiah,
\nfiled  returns\tunder protest declaring the same  income  as
\noriginally assessed.  In the view of the Income-tax Officer
\nMuthiah\t had  not furnished in Part III clause\t(c)  of\t the
\nreturn full facts regarding the other parties and in  column
\n2  he  had merely disclosed that Ramanathan,  Alagappan\t and
\nAnnamalai were minors: that “information was not full in the
\nsense that he had not stated that
\nL10Sup.\/69-11
\n718<\/span>
\nthey were minors sons” of Muthiah.  Accordingly the  Income-
\ntax  Officer  held that the income of the  sons\t of  Muthiah
\nwhich should have been included under s. 16 (3) (a) (ii)  of
\nthe Income-tax Act had escaped assessment in Muthiah’s hands
\nand he brought that income to tax.\n<\/p>\n
The  Appellate\tAssistant Commissioner confirmed  the  order
\nmade  by the Income-tax Officer.  In appeal to the  Tribunal
\nit  was\t contended by Muthiah that he had  fully  and  truly
\ndisclosed all the particulars he was required to disclose in
\nthe  returns of his income for the three years in  question,
\nand  “s.  34 (a) (a) had no application\t to  the  assessment
\nyears 1952-53 and 1953-54 and for 1954-55 the reopening\t was
\nbased only on a change of opinion”.  Muthiah also  contended
\nthat s. 40 of the Income-tax Act was mandatory and since the
\nIncome-tax  Officer  had made separate\tassessments  on\t the
\nminors\trepresented by their mother, no further’  assessment
\nunder  s.  16(3)  could\t be made,  the\ttwo  sections  being
\nmutually exclusive.\n<\/p>\n
The Tribunal observed that for the first two years s. 34 (1)\n<\/p>\n
(a)  applied, that in respect of the year 1954-55 there\t was
\nno  change  of\topinion\t but  the  assessment  was  made  on
\ninformation  received within the meaning of s. 34 (1 )\t(b)
\nof  the Income-tax Act and that separate assessment  of\t the
\nminors\tdid not stop the Income-tax Officer  from  assessing
\nthe  income  received  by the minor sons  in  the  hands  of
\nMuthiah.   The Appellate Tribunal accordingly confirmed\t the
\norder of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
\nAt  the\t instance of Muthiah the  following  questions\twere
\nreferred to the High Court of Madras :\n<\/p>\n
\t      (i)   Whether   on  the  facts  and   in\t the
\n\t      circumstances  of the case, the  re-assessment
\n\t      made on the assessee under s. 34 of the Act is
\n\t      valid in law for 1952-53 to 1954-55 ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)Whether   on\tthe  facts  and\t  in   the
\n\t      circumstances  of the case, the  inclusion  of
\n\t      the share income of the minor in the hands  of
\n\t      the assessee by invoking the provisions of  s.
\n\t      16(3)   of   the\t Act   is   valid   in\t law
\n\t      notwithstanding that an assessment is made  on
\n\t      the minor represented by his guardian ?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  answer  to\t the second question must, in  view  of\t the
\nrecent\tjudgment  of  this Court in C.\tR.  Nagappa  v.\t The
\nCommissioner   of   Income-tax,\t  Mysore<\/a>(1),   be   in\t the
\naffirmative.\n<\/p>\n
In  considering the first question it is necessary to  refer
\nto  certain  provisions\t of the Income-tax  Act,  1922.\t  By
\nsection 3
\n(1)  [1969] 1 S.C.R. 979.\n<\/p>\n
719<\/span><\/p>\n
the  total income of the previous year of every\t individual,
\nHindu undivided family, Company and local authority  and  of
\nevery firm and other association of persons or the  partners
\nof  the firm or the members of the association\tindividually
\nwas  charged  to tax for that year in accordance  with,\t and
\nsubject\t to the provisions of the act at any rate  or  rates
\nprescribed  by the Finance Act.\t “Total income” was  defined
\nin s. 2(15) as meaning “total amount of income, profits\t and
\ngains referred to in sub-s. (1) of section 4 computed in the
\nmanner\tlaid  down in this Act.” Section 4(1)  set  out\t the
\nmethod of computation of total income : it enacted
\n\t      (1)   Subject  to the provisions of this\tAct,
\n\t      the  total income of any previous year of\t any
\n\t      person includes all income, profits and gains
\n\t      from whatever source derived which–\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   are\t  received  or\tare  deemed  to\t  be
\n\t      received\tin the taxable territories  in\tsuch
\n\t      year by or on behalf of such person or\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   if\tsuch  person  is  resident  in\t the
\n\t      taxable territories during such year,-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (i)   accrue or arise or are deemed to  accrue
\n\t      or  arise\t to him in the\ttaxable\t territories
\n\t      during such year, or
\nSection 22 by sub-s. (1) required the Income-tax Officer  to
\ngive  notice by publication in the press in  the  prescribed
\nmanner, requiring every person whose total income during the
\nprevious  year\texceeds\t the maximum  exempt  from  tax,  to
\nfurnish\t a return in the prescribed form setting  forth\t his
\ntotal  income.\t Sub-sectian (2)  authority  the  Income-tax
\nOfficer to serve a notice upon a person whose income in\t the
\nopinion of the Income-tax Officer exceeded the minimum\tfree
\nfrom  tax.   Section  23  dealt\t with  the  assessment.\t  It
\nconferred  power upon the Income-tax Officer to\t assess\t the
\ntotal  income  of  the assessee and  to\t determine  the\t sum
\npayable\t by  him on the basis of such return,  submitted  by
\nhim.   Rule  19 framed under s. 59 of  the  Income-tax\tAct,
\n1922,  required\t the assessee to make a return in  the\tform
\nprescribed  thereunder,\t and  in Form  A  applicable  to  an
\nindividual or a Hindu undivided family or an association  of
\npersons\t there\twas no clause which required  disclosure  of
\nincome of Any person other than the income of the  assessee,
\nwhich  was liable to be included in his total  income.\t The
\nAct and the Rules accordingly imposed no obligation upon the
\nassessee to disclose to the Income-tax Officer in his return
\ninformation  relating to income of any other person  by\t law
\ntaxable in his hands.\n<\/p>\n
720<\/span><\/p>\n
But  s’ 16 sub-s. (3) provided that in computing  the  total
\nincome of any individual for the purpose of assessment there
\nshall  be included the classes of income mentioned  in\tcls.\n<\/p>\n
(a)  and (b).  Sub-section (3) (a) (ii) in-so-far as  it  is
\nmaterial  provided  “In computing the total  income  of\t any
\nindividual  for\t the purpose of assessment, there  shall  be
\nincluded:\n<\/p>\n
(a)  so much of the income of a wife or minor child of\tsuch
\nindividual as arises directly or indirectly–\n<\/p>\n
(i)\n<\/p>\n
(ii) from  the\tadmission of the minor to  the\tbenefits  of
\npartnership  in\t a  firm  of  which  such  individual  is  a
\npartner;”\n<\/p>\n
The assessee was bound to disclose under s. 22(5) the  names
\nand addresses of his partners, if any, engaged in  business,
\nprofession or vocation together ‘with the location and style
\nof the principal place and branches thereof and the  extent
\nof  the\t shares of all such partners in the profits  of\t the
\nbusiness,  profession or vocation and any branches  thereof,
\nbut  the as was not required in making a return to  disclose
\nthat  any  income was received by his wife  or\tminor  child
\nadmitted  to the benefits of partnership of a firm of  which
\nhe was a partner.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel for the Commissioner contended that in the forms  of
\nreturns prescribed in the “Notes of Guidance” for drawing up
\nthe  return  were  printed, and\t thereby  the  assessee\t was
\ninformed that he had to disclose the income received by\t his
\nwife  and minor children from a firm of which  the  assessee
\nwas  a partner.\t Counsel has however not placed\t before\t the
\nCourt  the forms of return in vogue in the relevant year  of
\nassessment.   In the Income Tax Manual published  under\t the
\nauthority  of the Central Government in 1945 under  cl.\t (3)
\nprinted at p. 185 theassessee is advised to include  the
\nreturn under the appropriate headcertain classes of income
\nwhich are liable to be included in theassessment   of\tan
\nindividual under s. 16, and income liable to betaxed
\nunder  ss. 41D, 44E and 44F.  This instruction was  repeated
\nin  the Manual Parts II and III at pp. 344 and 345  in\tthe
\n10th Edition published in 1950.\t But in the 11th Edition  of
\nthe  Manual  published\tin 1954 no  such  instructions\twere
\nprinted.   About  the date on which  the  instructions\twere
\ndeleted Counsel for the Commissioner was unable to give\t any
\ninformation.  Assuming that there were instructions  printed
\nin  the\t Forms\tof return in the  relevant  years’,  in\t the
\nabsence\t of any head under which the income of the  wife  or
\nminor  child of a partner whose wife or a minor child was  a
\npartner\t in  the same firm, could be shown, by\tnot  showing
\nthat income the tax-payer cannot be deemed to have failed or
\nomitted to disclose fully and truly all material
\n721<\/span>
\nfacts necessary\t for his assessment.  Section 16(3) imposer,
\nan  obligation\tupon the Income-tax Officer to\tcompute\t the
\ntotal income of any individual for the purpose of assessment
\nby including the items of income set out in cls. (a) (i)  to\n<\/p>\n
(iv) and (b), but thereby no obligation is unposed upon the
\ntax-payer  to disclose the income liable to be\tincluded  in
\nhis  assessment under s. 16(3).\t For failing or omitting  to
\ndisclose  that\tincome proceedings for\treassessment  cannot
\ntherefore  be  commenced under s. 34 (1) (a)  Section  22(5)
\nrequired  the assessee to furnish particulars of  the  names
\nand  shares  of his partners, but imposes no  obligation  to
\nmention or set out the income of the nature mentioned in  S.
\n16(3).\tIn the relevant years there was no head in the\tform
\nunder  which  income liable to be assessed to tax  under  s.
\n16(3) (,a) and (b) could be disclosed.\n<\/p>\n
We  are in the circumstances unable to agree with  the\tHigh
\nCourt that s. 34 imposed an obligation upon the assessee  to
\ndisclose  all income includable in his assessment by  reason
\nof  s.\t16(3)  (a) (ii).  Section 34(1)\t (a)  sets  out\t the
\nconditions in which the power may be exercised : it did\t not
\ngive,-rise  to an obligation to disclose  information  which
\nenabled\t the Income-tax Officer to exercise the power  under
\ns.  16(3)  (a)\t(ii),  nor had the  use\t of  the  expression
\n“necessary for his assessment” in s. 34(1)(a) that effect.
\nThe High Court did not consider the question whether in\t the
\nyear  1954-55  the notice under s. 34(1)  (b)  was  properly
\nissued\tagainst\t Muthiah.  The Tribunal\t in  their  judgment
\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n
“There\tis  no basis for the argument  that  the  Income-tax
\nOfficer\t had  only  changed his\t opinion  and  reopened\t the
\nassessment.”\n<\/p>\n
We  agree  with that view.  The order of  re-assessment\t was
\nmade well within four years from the date of the last day of
\nthe  year of assessment 1954-55.  The notice  was  therefore
\ncompetently issued by the Income-tax Officer.
\nThe order passed by the High Court,, in so far as it relates
\nto the years 1952-53 and 1953-54 is set aside and the answer
\nin  the\t negative  is recorded.\t For the  year\t1954-55\t the
\nanswer recorded by the High Court is confirmed.\t There\twill
\nbe no order as to costs throughout.\n<\/p>\n
Y.P.\t\t\t   Appeal partly allowed.\n722<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India V.D. M. R. M. M. R. M. Muthiah … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 14 February, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 10, 1969 SCR (3) 715 Author: S C. Bench: Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: V.D. M. R. M. M. R. M. MUTHIAH CHETTIAR Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS DATE OF […]<\/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-520","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nV.D. M. R. M. M. R. M. Muthiah ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 14 February, 1969 - 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\/v-d-m-r-m-m-r-m-muthiah-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-february-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.D. M. R. M. M. R. M. Muthiah ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 14 February, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-d-m-r-m-m-r-m-muthiah-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-february-1969\" \/>\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=\"1969-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-11T22:02:12+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-d-m-r-m-m-r-m-muthiah-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-february-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-d-m-r-m-m-r-m-muthiah-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-february-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.D. M. R. M. M. R. M. Muthiah … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 14 February, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-11T22:02:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-d-m-r-m-m-r-m-muthiah-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-february-1969\"},\"wordCount\":2377,\"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\\\/v-d-m-r-m-m-r-m-muthiah-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-february-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-d-m-r-m-m-r-m-muthiah-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-february-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-d-m-r-m-m-r-m-muthiah-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-february-1969\",\"name\":\"V.D. M. R. M. M. R. M. Muthiah ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 14 February, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-11T22:02:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-d-m-r-m-m-r-m-muthiah-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-february-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-d-m-r-m-m-r-m-muthiah-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-february-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-d-m-r-m-m-r-m-muthiah-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-february-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.D. M. R. M. M. R. M. Muthiah … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 14 February, 1969\"}]},{\"@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":"V.D. M. R. M. M. R. M. Muthiah ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 14 February, 1969 - 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\/v-d-m-r-m-m-r-m-muthiah-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-february-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.D. M. R. M. M. R. M. Muthiah ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 14 February, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-d-m-r-m-m-r-m-muthiah-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-february-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-11T22:02:12+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-d-m-r-m-m-r-m-muthiah-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-february-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-d-m-r-m-m-r-m-muthiah-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-february-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.D. M. R. M. M. R. M. Muthiah … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 14 February, 1969","datePublished":"1969-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-11T22:02:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-d-m-r-m-m-r-m-muthiah-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-february-1969"},"wordCount":2377,"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\/v-d-m-r-m-m-r-m-muthiah-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-february-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-d-m-r-m-m-r-m-muthiah-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-february-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-d-m-r-m-m-r-m-muthiah-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-february-1969","name":"V.D. M. R. M. M. R. M. Muthiah ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 14 February, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-11T22:02:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-d-m-r-m-m-r-m-muthiah-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-february-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-d-m-r-m-m-r-m-muthiah-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-february-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-d-m-r-m-m-r-m-muthiah-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-february-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.D. M. R. M. M. R. M. Muthiah … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 14 February, 1969"}]},{"@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\/520","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=520"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/520\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=520"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=520"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=520"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}