{"id":5315,"date":"1962-11-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-11-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-robert-j-sas-on-16-november-1962"},"modified":"2015-05-01T02:51:57","modified_gmt":"2015-04-30T21:21:57","slug":"commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-robert-j-sas-on-16-november-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-robert-j-sas-on-16-november-1962","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Robert J. Sas on 16 November, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Robert J. Sas on 16 November, 1962<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nROBERT J. SAS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n16\/11\/1962\n\nBENCH:\n\n\nACT:\nIncome Tax-Notice of assessment-Limitation for-Income deemed\nto  be distributed as dividend-Indian Income-tax  Act,\t1922\n(11 of 1922), ss. 23 A (1), 34.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  assessees\twere  the three shareholders  of  a  private\ncompany.   The\tcompany made profits in\t the  calendar\tyear\n1947,  but did not declare any dividend at the\tshareholders\nmeeting\t held on December 4, 1948.  The\t Income-tax  Officer\npassed\tan  order under s. 23 A (1) of\tthe  Income-tax\t Act\nwhereby\t the income of the company was deemed to  have\tbeen\ndivided\t amongst the three shareholders.  He issued  notices\nto the assessees which were served on them on April 1, 1954.\nThe assessees contended that the notices were served  beyond\nthe period of four years allowed by s. 34 (1) (b).\nHeld,  that  the notices served under s. 34 (1) of  the\t Act\nwere beyond time and the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdic-\ntion to assess the assessees.  Under s. 23A (1) the dividend\nwas  to be deemed to have been distributed not on  June\t 30,\n1949, by which date the company should have distributed\t the\ndividend,  but\ton  the date of the  general  meeting  i.e.,\nDecember,  4,  1948  within the\t accounting  year  1948\t and\nassessment year\n210\n1949-50.   The notice was not served within four years\tfrom\nthe end of the assessment year.\t It made no difference\tthat\nunder s.  23 A (1) an order could be passed at any time.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeals Nos.138 to\t 138
\nof 1962.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals\t by special leave from the judgment and order  dated
\nMarch  19,  1958,  of the Bombay High  Court  in  Income-tax
\nReference No. 74 of 1957.\n<\/p>\n
Gopal Singh and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
\nR.   J.\t Kolah, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and  Ravinder
\nNarain,’ for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
R. Gopalakrishnan, for the Intervener.\n<\/p>\n
1962.\tNovember  16.\tThe  judgment  of  the\tCourt,\t was
\ndelivered by
\nKAPUR  J.These ‘three appeals by special leave are  brought
\nagainst\t the judgment and order of the High  Court   Bombay.
\nThe  appellant in all the three appeals is the\tCommissioner
\nof Income-Tax  but in each of the appeals the respondent  is
\ndifferent 1. C., one of: the three shareholders of a private
\nlimited company A.C.E.C. ‘Private (India) Limited which\t was
\ncarrying  on business in India and made profits\t during\t the
\ncalendar  year\t1947.  The accounting year is  the  calendar
\nyear ending, December 31, 1948, and the relevant  assessment
\nyear  1949-50.\t Although  the,\t company  had  earned  large
\nprofits during the year 1947 it did not declare any dividend
\nat  the shareholders’ meeting held on December 4, 1948.\t  On
\nMarch 29; 1954, the Income-tax Officer passed an order under
\ns.  23A(1), ‘of the Income-tax Act, hereinafter\t termed\t the
\nAct  Whereby the income of the ‘Company. was  in  accordance
\nwith that provision, deemed to have been divided amongst the
\nshareholders.  By that order the following dividends were
\n 211<\/span>
\ndeemed to have been distributed amongst the three shareholders,
\neach a respondent in one of the appeals.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Paul Rouffart\t       :Rs. 1,09,8591-\nMr. Paul Victor Hermans\t       :Rs. 1,00,189\/-\nMr. Robert J. Sas\t       :Rs. 1,09,859\/-\n<\/pre>\n
     The  Income-tax Officer issued notices under s.  34  of
\nthe  Act  and  the notices were\t served\t on  the  respective
\nrespondents  on April 1, 1954.\tThereafter the return of the
\nincome\twas  submitted and the assessment was  completed  in
\nregard\t‘to the shareholders.  Appeals were taken  first  to
\nthe Appellate Assistant Commissioner and then to the  Income
\ntax Appellate Tribunal.\t One of the points taken before\t the
\nTribunal was that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction
\nto  take  proceedings  as the notices  were  served  on\t the
\nassessee respondents beyond the period of four years allowed
\nunder s 34(1)(b) of the Act.  This plea was accepted by\t the
\nTribunal and at the instance of the Commissioner of  Income-
\ntax  a case was stated to the High Court under s.  66(1)  of
\nthe Act and the following two questions were referred to it:\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1)   Whether  on the facts and  circumstances
\n\t      of the case it was necessary for the Incometax
\n\t      Officer to initiate action under section 34 of
\n\t      the Indian Income-tax Act in order to tax\t the
\n\t      deemed  income  distributed by virtue  of\t the
\n\t      order under section 23A(1) of the Act made  in
\n\t      the cage of the A.C.E.C. Private (India)\tLtd.
\n\t      ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   If\tthe answer to question No. 1  is  in
\n\t      the  affirmative whether having regard to\t the
\n\t      observations  of\ttheir  lordships  in  Navin-
\n\t      chandra  Mafatlal v. Commissioner\t of  Income-
\n\t      tax,,  Bombay City 1 (1955) 27 I.T.R. 245\t the
\n\t      notice,  served  on April 1, 1954 was  out  of
\n\t      time;?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      212<\/span><\/p>\n
The  second  question  was reframed by\tthe  High  Court  as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      If  the  answer to question No. 1\t is  in\t the
\n\t      affirmative whether the notice served on April
\n\t      1, 1954 was out of time ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Both  the  questions were answered in  the  affirmative\t and
\nagainst\t the  Commissioner  of\tIncome-tax.   Against\tthat
\njudgment  and order he has come in appeal to this  court  by
\nspecial leave.\n<\/p>\n
In view of the decision of this court in Sardar Baldev Singh
\nv.  Commissioner  of  Income-tax,  Delhi  &  Ajmer<\/a>  (1)\t and
\nCommissioner  of Income-tax V. Navinchandra Mafatlal<\/a> (2)  in
\nwhich  it was held that an assessment cannot be\t made  under
\ns.23A  of  the\tAct  because  that  section  does  not\tmake
\nprovision  for an assessment to’ be made and assessment\t can
\nonly  be made under s. 34 of the Act, the first question  no
\nlonger\tsurvives  for decision and was\trightly\t not  argued
\nbefore us.\n<\/p>\n
The  only question that remains for decision is\t the  second
\nquestion i. e., whether the notice served on April 1 , 1954,
\nwas out of time.  Counsel for the appellant-Commissioner  of
\nIncome-tax-argued   (1)\t  that\tthere  was   no\t  limitation
\nprescribed in regard to the order to be made under s. 23A of
\nthe Act and if the period mentioned in a. 34 (1) (b) is made
\napplicable to orders under s. 23A then that section (s. 23A)
\nwould  become unworkable; (2) that as under s. 23A(1)  there
\nwas a period of six months up to the end of which  dividends
\ncould  be  distributed\tthe accounting year  would,  in\t the
\npresent\t case, be 1949 and the assessment year\t1950-51\t and
\ntherefore  the notice could be served within four  years  of
\nthe  end of that year i. e.. up to March 31, 1955.   Finally
\nit was urged that proviso (1) to sub-s. (3) of s. 34 applied
\nand  as\t the notice was issued within four  years  under  s.
\n34(1)(b) there was
\n(1) [1961] 1 S.C.R. 482.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1961] 42 I.T.R. 53.\n<\/p>\n
213<\/span><\/p>\n
a period of one year from the date of service of the  notice
\nduring\twhich the assessment or reassessment could  be\tmade
\nand  the impugned order having been made within that  period
\nit was a proper and a valid order.\n<\/p>\n
In  the\t present  case\tthe  High  Court  in  its   advisory
\n,.jurisdiction\thad  to\t give its opinion  on  the  question
\nsubmitted  to it and it refrained the question in  order  to
\nbring  out the question which arises from the order  of\t the
\nTribunal We did not allow the question of the  applicability
\nof proviso (1) to s. 34(3) to be raised as the question does
\nnot take in the point raised about the proviso to sub-s. (3)
\nof  s.\t34.   The question as framed by the  High  Court  is
\nwhether\t the service of notice under s. 34(1)(b) was out  of
\ntime.\tThe  proviso  to  sub-s. (3) of\t s.  34\t relates  to
\ncompletion of assessment within a particular period when the
\nnotice is issued before the period of limitation referred to
\nin  s.\t34(1)(b).  The two are different questions  and\t one
\ndoes not include the other.\n<\/p>\n
At  the relevant date s. 23A which empowered the  Income-tax
\nOfficer\t to assess individual members of  certain  companies
\nread as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t      S.    23A.  Power to assess individual members
\n\t      of  certain companies (1).  Where\t the  Income
\n\t      tax  Officer is satisfied that in\t respect  of
\n\t      any  previous  year  the\tprofits\t and   gains
\n\t      distributed as dividends by any company up  to
\n\t      the end of the sixth month after its  accounts
\n\t      for  that\t previous year are laid\t before\t the
\n\t      company in general meeting are less than sixty
\n\t      per  cent\t of  the assessable  income  of\t the
\n\t      company  of that previous year, as reduced  by
\n\t      the amount of incometax and super-tax  payable
\n\t      by  the company in respect thereof  he  shall,
\n\t      unless, he is satisfied that having regard  to
\n\t      losses  incurred\tby the\tcompany\t in  earlier
\n\t      years or to the smallness of the profit  made,
\n\t      the
\n\t      214<\/span>
\n\t      payment  of  a dividend or a  larger  dividend
\n\t      than  that  declared would be  unreason  able,
\n\t      make   with  the\tprevious  approval  of\t the
\n\t      Inspecting Assistant Commissioner an order  in
\n\t      writing that the undistributed portion. of the
\n\t      assessable  income  of’ the company   of\tthat
\n\t      previous\tyear  as  computed  for\t  income-tax
\n\t      purposes and reduced by the amount of  income-
\n\t      tax  and super-tax payable by the\t company  in
\n\t      respect  thereof shall be deemed to have\tbeen
\n\t      distributed    as\t  dividends   amongst\t the
\n\t      shareholders’  as at the date of\tthe  general
\n\t      meeting\t aforesaid   and    thereupon\t the
\n\t      proportionate    share   thereof\t  of\teach
\n\t      shareholder  shall  be included in  the  total
\n\t      income of such shareholder for the purpose  of
\n\t      assessing his total income.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Income-tax Officer has power to make an order under this
\nsection determining the amount of undistributed balance\t out
\nof   the  profits  of  a  company  where  the  company\t has
\ndistributed  by\t way of dividends out of the income  of\t the
\nprevious year less than 60% of the assessable income; and if
\nit has distributed less than 60% up to the sixth month after
\nthe  holding of the general meeting then  the  undistributed
\nassessable  income shall be deemed to have been\t distributed
\nas  dividend amongst the shareholders as at the date of\t the
\ngeneral meeting.  Thereafter the proportionate share of each
\nshareholder   shall  be\t included  in  the  total  of\tsuch
\nshareholder  for the purpose of assessing his total  income.
\nIt  comes  to this  that if at the end of  the\tsixth  month
\nafter  the  general  meeting of a company  to  consider\t its
\naccounts  of the previous year the income of which is  being
\nassessed,  the Income-tax Officer finds that  the  dividends
\ndistributed are less than 60% of the assessable income\tthen
\nsuch  undistributed  income  shall be deemed  to  have\tbeen
\ndistributed at the general meeting or in
\n215<\/span>
\naccordance with the resolution passed at the general meeting
\nand  proportionate  share  shall be included  in  the  total
\nincome-of  each\t individual  shareholder.   Thus  s.  23A(1)
\ncreates a fictional distribution of dividend which is deemed
\nto be a receipt of dividend ‘by the shareholder although  in
\nfact the shareholders does not receive it.  It is deemed  to
\nhave  been distributed on the date on which accounts of\t the
\nprevious  year were laid before the company at its  general
\nmeeting.  Thus construed the undistributed assessable income
\nin  the present case was rightly determined  by the  Income-
\ntax  Officer  because  60% was not  distributed\t by  way  of
\ndividends up to the end of the sixth month after the holding
\nof  the\t meeting which was on December 4,  1948.   Under  s.
\n23A(1)\tof  the Act dividend distributed by June  30,  1949,
\nshould\tnot have been less than the statutory limit but\t the
\neffect\tof  the\t deeming provision is not  that\t the  income
\nshould be deemed to have been distributed on June 30,  1949,
\nbut  on\t the date of the general meeting i.e.  December\t 4,
\n1948,  and  therefore within the accounting year  1948,\t the
\nrelevant  assessment  year  being  1949-50.   It  makes\t  no
\ndifference  that according to the wording of s.\t 23A(1)\t the
\norder  could  be passed at any time,  the  assessment  would
\nstill have to be ‘Made under s. 34(1)(b) of the Act and if a
\nnotice\tis not served in accordance with that provision\t the
\nIncometax  Officer  will have no jurisdiction  to  take\t any
\n,action against the shareholder.  The notice under s.  34(1)
\nis  to\tbe  served within four years from  the\tend  of\t the
\nassessment year.  It was held by this\tcourt\t in    First
\nAdditionallncome-tax Officer,\t   Mysore, v. H. N.  S.<\/a>
\nlyengarthat the period of  eight or four years under s.34(1)(a)
\nor (b) begins from the end of the assessment year.   Besides
\nwe  ,cannot  see why s. 23A(1)\t‘Should,  become  unworkable
\nmerely\tbecause\t the  notice under s.  34(1)  which  is\t the
\nassessment  section.  prescribes  a time  limit\t for  taking
\naction for escaped incomes nor was any reason
\n(1)[1962] Supp.\t 1 S.C.R.I.\n<\/p>\n
216<\/span><\/p>\n
brought to our attention in support of that submission.
\nIn  this  view of the matter the answer given  by  the\tHigh
\nCourt to the second question was correct and the  assessment
\nmade under s. 34(1)(b) of the Act after four years from\t the
\nend  of the relevant assessment year was out of time.\tThis
\nis the only question which survives for decision and in\t our
\nopinion the High Court answered it correctly.
\nThese appeals, therefore fail and are dismissed with  costs.
\nOne hearing fee.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t     Appeals dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Robert J. Sas on 16 November, 1962 PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY Vs. RESPONDENT: ROBERT J. SAS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/11\/1962 BENCH: ACT: Income Tax-Notice of assessment-Limitation for-Income deemed to be distributed as dividend-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), ss. 23 A (1), 34. HEADNOTE: […]<\/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-5315","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Robert J. Sas on 16 November, 1962 - 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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-robert-j-sas-on-16-november-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Robert J. Sas on 16 November, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-robert-j-sas-on-16-november-1962\" \/>\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=\"1962-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-30T21:21:57+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-robert-j-sas-on-16-november-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-robert-j-sas-on-16-november-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Robert J. Sas on 16 November, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-30T21:21:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-robert-j-sas-on-16-november-1962\"},\"wordCount\":1841,\"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\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-robert-j-sas-on-16-november-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-robert-j-sas-on-16-november-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-robert-j-sas-on-16-november-1962\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Robert J. Sas on 16 November, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-30T21:21:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-robert-j-sas-on-16-november-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-robert-j-sas-on-16-november-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-robert-j-sas-on-16-november-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Robert J. Sas on 16 November, 1962\"}]},{\"@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":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Robert J. Sas on 16 November, 1962 - 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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-robert-j-sas-on-16-november-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Robert J. Sas on 16 November, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-robert-j-sas-on-16-november-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-30T21:21:57+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-robert-j-sas-on-16-november-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-robert-j-sas-on-16-november-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Robert J. Sas on 16 November, 1962","datePublished":"1962-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-30T21:21:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-robert-j-sas-on-16-november-1962"},"wordCount":1841,"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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-robert-j-sas-on-16-november-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-robert-j-sas-on-16-november-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-robert-j-sas-on-16-november-1962","name":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Robert J. Sas on 16 November, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-30T21:21:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-robert-j-sas-on-16-november-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-robert-j-sas-on-16-november-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-robert-j-sas-on-16-november-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Robert J. Sas on 16 November, 1962"}]},{"@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\/5315","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=5315"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5315\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5315"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5315"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5315"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}